





















































































Jl* 

GILBERT STUART’S 


PORTRAITS OF 

GEORGE WASHINGTON 


BY 

MANTLE FIELDING 

it 



/ 


PRINTED FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS 
PHILADELPHIA 


EL-312, 

.4-3 


.Fs4- 


^ \ *A 3 'A A 


WICKERSHAM PRINTING CO, 
LANCASTER, PA. 





This book is limited to an edition of 
Three Hundred and Fifty Copies, of 
which ioo are printed on large paper. 

• - 







PREFACE 


T T may possibly seem to those who are not keen ob- 
-*• servers of the trend of events in the art world that this 
volume on Gilbert Stuart at this late date, needs an ex¬ 
planation. 

To others however who are sensitive to those sudden 
and unaccountable changes of opinion with regard to works 
of art which so often take place, and who are instantly 
alive to any variation in the sense of value attached to 
them which sometimes, without apparent reason, occurs in 
art circles, the forthcoming book will, I trust, prove to be 
opportune. 

Never was there a time when interest in all matters re¬ 
lating to Americana seemed more apparent than it does today, 
nor when the immortal name of Washington shone with more 
fervent brilliancy than at the present time, when many, who 
view with something of alarm the uncurbed and almost uni¬ 
versal spread of ultra-revolutionary ideas throughout the 
world, feel it to be a salutary thing to hold up again before 
the eyes of our people that sublime and commanding figure 
of the man who stood, in such a troubled and perplexing era 
of America’s history, so unswervingly for honesty and jus¬ 
tice, who was endowed with the incomparable gift of clear 

(v) 



PREFACE 


thinking, and who, though sometimes tempted to do other¬ 
wise, remained with adamantine firmness, steadfast to the 
principles which he believed to be right. 

It seems only logical therefore that the artist, who so 
supremely portrayed on his canvas the features and char¬ 
acter of the “Father of His Country”, should reap the 
just recognition which he is receiving today. 

There is a current feeling that Gilbert Stuart’s star is in 
the ascendant, and so greatly have the appreciation and 
market value of his work increased that it seems almost like 
the fulfilment of a cherished dream to many of the earlier 
admirers and collectors of his work. 

Having this general interest in mind, as well as the 
letters of special inquiry the author is constantly receiving 
asking information relative to the authentic as well as 
doubtful Stuart-Washingtons, and because there never has 
been a complete record of these portraits compiled with the 
history of their various ownerships, he feels that the reason 
for the assembling of the material in this book will be readily 
understood. 

In 1834 a few years after Stuart’s death, the artist, 
William Dunlap, published his amusing and chatty “History 
of the Arts of Design, in the United States”, and the sec¬ 
tion devoted to Gilbert Stuart in this pioneer book, contrib¬ 
uted largely to George C. Mason’s “Life and Works of 
Gilbert Stuart” (published in 1879). The latter also con- 

(vi) 


PREFACE 


tains the material written by Jane Stuart for a life of her 
father, which she gave Mason to include in his work. 
These books with various articles published since and com¬ 
paratively little known, together with all the records of the 
paintings of Washington by Stuart, have been responsible' 
for the compilation of the following work. 

Gilbert Stuart’s portraits of Washington have had much 
to do with perpetuating the fame of the artist, and to such 
heights have the values of these pictures soared at the pres¬ 
ent time, it is impossible to estimate what they may be a 
few years hence. This rather sudden appreciation of values 
has been responsible for the bringing to light of many pictures 
hardly known before, as well as many “Copies ”, and so- 
called “ Stuarts/’ and it is largely on account of this confusion 
that the author has thought it necessary to give so many de¬ 
tails as to the history and ownership of the portraits. The 
question of authenticity has sometimes been a difficult one to 
determine. Stuart’s work was hardly ever signed, and as a 
rule there is little contemporary documentary evidence to 
go by, the artist’s masterly and characteristic manner of 
work telling its own story. The author therefore thought 
it best to omit many pictures considered genuine without 
doubt by their owners, (who have exhibited or shown them 
as “Stuarts,”) because their authenticity was considered 
doubtful, even at the risk of having his lists considered incom¬ 
plete or carelessly compiled. To go into the question thor- 

(vii) 


PREFACE 


oughly would require the copying of many documents and 
endless controversy, especially where the painting confronts 
one—“restored”—“rebacked”—or “retouched” and when 
the ravages of time or the cleaner are sadly apparent. 

It is the desire of the author that any mistakes dis¬ 
covered may be made known to him for future correction, 
and that all authenticated additional information may be 
given him. He also makes his grateful acknowledgments 
to the many friends who have so courteously and generously 
helped him with information and material for the preparation 
of this book. 


(viii) 



GILBERT STUART, AET 
JOHN NEAGLE, Painter 


72 






CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER I* 

Birth and Early Life ..... i 

CHAPTER II 

Student Days in England . ■ . . 13 

CHAPTER III 

London Portraits . ..... 26 

CHAPTER IV 

Dublin; Sails for America . . . . 35 

CHAPTER V 

New York, Philadelphia, and Washington . . 39 

CHAPTER VI 

Boston, Death and Obituary . . . . 50 

CHAPTER VII 

The Art of Gilbert Stuart . . . . • 57 

CHAPTER VIII 

Portraits of Washington . . . 73 

$ 

Catalogue of Stuart-Washington Pictures . . 113 

(ix) 




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


Washington, 

No. 

i 

. Fronting Title 

Gilbert Stuart 

• • 

44 

• • 

Preface 

... 

V 1 J 1 

Washington, 

No. 

2 

tt 

• • • 

Page 

8 

<< 

No. 

3 

44 

• • • 

tt 

14 

(( 

No. 

4 • 

44 

• • • 

u 

20 

tt 

No. 

5 

u 

• • • 

u 

26 

tt 

No. 

6 

a 

• • • 

tt 

30 

tt 

No. 

7 

a 

• • • 

tt 

38 ^ 

tt 

No. 

9 • 

n 

• • • 

11 

44 

a 

No. 

11 

a 

• • • 

tt 

54^ 

tt 

No. 

2 7 • 

a 

• • • 

tt 

64 

it 

No. 

19 

<< 

• • • 

tt 

7 2 

tf 

No. 

22 

a 

• • • 

tt 

78^ 

tt 

No. 

15 

<< 

• • • 

a 

88 

it 

No. 

16 

<< 

• • • 

tt 

94 

ft 

No. 

24 

<< 

• • • 

n 

104 

tt 

No. 

1 

4 4 

• • • 

n 

114 

n 

No. 

14 

4 4 

• • • 

tt 

I2S U 

tt 

No. 

20 

4 4 

• • • 

tt 

136^' 

it 

No. 

23 

44 

• • • 

11 

140- 

tt 

No. 

33 • 

44 

• • • 

11 

152 

tt 

No. 

35 

4 4 

• • • 

u 

156 




(xi) 





LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


Washington, No. 29 


Fronting page 164 



No. 

3 i 

• • 

(< 

172 

<< 

No. 

58 . 

a 

• 

< t 

178 

<< 

No. 

36 

<< 

< < 

186 

u 

No. 

37 • 

<« 

• 

< < 

192 

(( 

No. 

39 

< ( 

• • 

<< 

200 

u 

No. 

40 

< i 

• 

<< 

2 10 V 

<< 

No. 

41 

<< 

• • 

<« 

218 

<< 

No. 

47 • 

<< 

• 

< < 

226 

u 

No. 

68 

<< 

• • 

<< 

230 

u 

No. 

103 . 

<< 

• 

(t 

24O 

Gilbert Stuart, Bust 

u 

• • 

(< 

25O 


(xii) 


CHAPTER I 


Birth and parentage.—Early life.—Visits Scotland.— 
Returns to Newport.—Student work, and portraits. 

T HE lives of the chosen few among the great ones of the 
earth, who have left upon it an indelible mark, seem 
to evidence the fact that to such is granted the privilege of 
entering upon the scene just as events are shaping them¬ 
selves towards a crisis, or when the time seems especially 
propitious for enabling them to exercise to the fullest, the 
special power of genius with which they are endowed. 

Gilbert Stuart has so frequently been acclaimed Amer¬ 
ica’s greatest portrait-painter that we have been accustomed 
to think of him as without a peer in the history of American 
art, and so render him the homage due him. Few people 
realize however, that had Stuart never painted a picture but 
his portraits of George Washington, they are in themselves 
sufficient to make and preserve forever the reputation which 
his name so deservedly bears today. 

It is pleasant to think that it was, indeed, no idle chance 
which threw the lives of the brilliant artist and the great 
Washington together, and that Stuart had arrived at the 
zenith of his power when he was called upon to paint him. 
So faithfully did he execute his task, and so skilfully did he 

(i) 


GILBERT STUART 


embody in his portraits the wisdom and dignity of his illus¬ 
trious sitter, that they have undoubtedly had much to do 
with perpetuating these conspicuous qualities of our First 
President. 

In 1746 one Dr. Thomas Moffatt, a native of Scotland, 
having been implicated in an insurrection at home, came to 
America and settled in Newport, Rhode Island. He was an 
able man and made many friends and became rather strenu¬ 
ously involved in Colonial politics. At the time of his arrival 
in America there was not a snuff-mill in the colonies, and all 
the snuff had to be imported from Glasgow. The Doctor, 
thinking he saw an enormous profit in tobacco-raising and 
snuff-grinding, entered into partnership with a young Scotch 
millwright, named Gilbert Stewart, who established the first 
snuff-mill in America, in Rhode Island. The latter soon 
found a helpmeet in the person of the beautiful Elizabeth 
Anthony, daughter of Albro Anthony, a native of England, 
but then residing on a large farm in Middletown a few 
miles from Newport. 

Three children were born to them, James who died in 
infancy, Ann who became the wife of Henry Newton and 
the mother of Gilbert Stuart Newton, the artist, and Gilbert, 
the subject of this biography. 

Gilbert was born in what was called the Narragansett 

country on December 3rd, 1755. When he was four months 

old, he was carried on Palm Sunday, by the snuff-grinder and 

(2) 


GILBERT STUART 


his beautiful wife, to the little Episcopal church and there 
baptized “ Gilbert Stewart.” In the records of St. Paul’s 
church may be seen the following’ entry: 

“April iith, 1756 being Palm Sunday, Doctor Mc- 
Sparran read prayers, preached, and baptized Gilbert Stew¬ 
art, son of Gilbert Stewart, the snuff-grinder. 

“Sureties: The Doctor, Mr. Benjamin Mumford, and 
Mrs. Hannah Mumford.” 

Some interest centres around the spelling of the artist’s 
name as it occurs in the church register. That the spelling 
as it appears there was neither an error nor an accident is 
proved by the signature of the snuff-grinder that has come 
down to us. It seems that in early life the young lad was 
known to the community as Gilbert Charles Stuart, and there 
is a pretty legend that it pleased his Scotch sire who was a 
staunch Jacobin to insert the Charles after Gilbert and to 
change the spelling of the last name, thus calling his boy 
after the last of the Royal Stuarts, the romantic Prince 
Charlie. In after life Stuart dropped the “ Charles ” and an¬ 
swered to the name of Gilbert Stuart. 

The old Stuart homestead, with its quaint gambrel-roof, 
where the future artist first saw the light, stands at the 
source of Narrow River, Wickford, Rhode Island. It is 
some nine or ten miles north of Narragansett Pier and west 
from Newport across the bay. McSparran Hill rises to the 

( 3 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


west, and an old white church with its spire silhouetted 
against the blue sky reminds one of the simple, primitive life 
of the New-Englanders of that day. This old-fashioned 
house by the side of a tiny stream, shut in by trees, and far 
away from the din and stir of the fashionable world, a spot 
so seldom visited, and so little thought of in the history of art 
in America, is the birthplace of the man whose work stands 
side by side with the great portrait painters of England. 

The ruins of the old house today have little within to 
attract attention; the ceilings are low, and the fireplaces 
broad and flaring to hold the big logs which were the only 
means of heat during the cold, bleak winters. The room 
where Gilbert Stuart was born, can be seen today as it was 
then; it has never been altered and the mill itself has known 
but few changes unless it be for the old mill-wheel which, 
originally installed to grind snuff for the many, afterwards 
ground corn for the sparsely-settled neighborhood. 

The snuff-mill proving after a time, as far as the Stuarts 
were concerned, an unsuccessful venture, and Mrs. Stuart 
coming into possession of a little property, the family moved 
across the bay to Newport, where the children could have 
the benefit of proper schools. Up to this time the boy had 
been taught the rudiments of learning by his mother. Arriv¬ 
ing in Newport, the children attended a school founded by 
Nathaniel Kay, “Collector of the King’s Customs,” which 
was then presided over by the Reverend George Bissit, 

( 4 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


assistant minister of Trinity church, the beautiful white 
Georgian spire of which can be seen today from all parts of 
the old town. Mr. Bissit had the reputation of being a man 
of learning, a fine Latin scholar, and a successful teacher. 

On the death of the Rev. Marmaduke Brown, the rector, he 
was chosen his successor and presided over Trinity parish 
till the breaking out of the Revolution, when his well-known 
Tory sentiments and allegiance to the Crown forced his re¬ 
tirement to England. His house was burned to the ground, * 
his property confiscated, and he never returned to America. 

Under the instruction of this able teacher young Stuart 
made good progress and became a fair Latin scholar, but in 
his boyhood Stuart seems to have shown none of those 
dominant characteristics which later on were so strongly de¬ 
veloped both in the artist and in the man, unless it were 
his predilection for pranks and practical jokes. He was 
fond of all sorts of mischief that boys are prone to, and more¬ 
over he had other tastes that claimed more than a share of 
his attention from study, namely his fondness for drawing 
and music. 

There is no portfolio of Stuart’s early drawings in exist¬ 
ence, for the simple reason that he had no regular portfolio. 
We find him in these early days sketching in charcoal and 
chalk on every fence, slab, or tail-board that came within 
reach of his eager and skilful boyish fingers, but unfortun¬ 
ately, the first brush of a sleeve or the first passing shower 

( 5 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


effaced what he had drawn, and none of his early student 
drawing-books seem to have been preserved. 

Newport was a well-known and popular watering-place 
long before the Revolution, and as soon as it had begun to 
recover from the effects of the war which had almost swept it 
off the face of the earth, many prominent families from the 
West Indies and Southern states passed their summers there. 
In the way of opportunity for artistic training there was little 
to offer our young painter. The practice of the fine arts 
seemed to be at a low ebb in America, and there were but 
few good pictures in the colonies generally speaking. New¬ 
port itself, possessed no collection of any kind worthy of the 
name, until the Vernon collection, made in France about the 
time of the French Revolution, was eventually brought to 
the little town. From an early period in its history New¬ 
port, however, had held a rather unique social position, and 
had been distinguished for its cultivated society and refined 
taste, and many of its old homes contained portraits and 
miniatures that could not be matched elsewhere in the col¬ 
onies. The choicest wares of China were to be seen in 
many households. 

Painters of portraits were not easy to find and very few 
artists of that day in America could support themselves with 
their brush alone, the majority having to supplement their art 
by painting the swinging signs over the doors of shops or 

inns, or by the fine coach-painting of the period. In New- 

( 6 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


port a man named Halpin made it known in 1773 that he 
had taken a room in the Brick Market, where he solicited a 
share of patronage as “ Portrait, Herald, and Sign painter.” 
In almost every instance the names of our early artists have 
come down to us associated with some calling not properly 
connected with the fine arts. Among these John Smibert 
who came to this country with Bishop Berkeley in 1728 was 
certainly well introduced and at once made many friends in 
Newport and Boston, where he opened his studio. 

His portraits are among the best we have of that period, 
and yet he had to paint coats-of-arms as well as likenesses, 
and his successor Joseph Blackburn who had the rare merit 
of painting hands well, and other qualities that might have 
found him employment anywhere, strangely enough lacked 
encouragement. Even at a later date, after the Revolution, 
when there was a greater demand for portraits, Samuel King 
who was born in Newport in 1749, and who gave instruction 
to Washington Allston in painting, and to Edward Greene 
Malbone (1777-1807) and Miss Hall in miniatures, had to 
make and sell mathematical instruments when not occupied 
with portrait painting. 

Even the few people capable of teaching young Stuart 
the rudiments of his calling were beyond his reach, but still 
he persevered, sketching his boy friends and showing a re¬ 
markable talent for keen observation. At last he obtained 
colors and a palette and the earliest product of his pencil so 

( 7 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


far as is known, is a picture owned in Newport, of a couple 
of Spanish dogs. The history of the picture is this: Dr. 
William Hunter came to America in 1752 and practiced 
medicine in a wide circuit of the country having Newport 
for a centre. During a professional visit at the home of 
Gilbert Stuart, he asked Mrs. Stuart who it was who made 
all the drawings in chalk and charcoal on the sides of the 
barn. She replied by pointing to her son, then about thir¬ 
teen years old, and described as a handsome, capable, self- 
willed boy. The good Doctor received the boy’s promise 
to visit his house; there he gave him brushes and colors, 
and bade him paint a picture of two dogs that were lying 
on the floor under a table. 

About the same time or a little later he received his 
first order for a portrait, or rather for two likenesses of Mr. 
and Mrs. John Bannister of Newport. The Bannisters were 
then prominent in this vicinity, and were large landowners. 
The portraits can now be seen in the Newport Redwood 
Library, and, although they are not remarkable as pictures, 
the facts connected with them make them interesting. The 
portrait of Mrs. Bannister is three-quarter length, seated, 
with a boy standing at her knee and a dog in her lap. That 
of Mr. Bannister shows a rather wooden gentleman, stand¬ 
ing, with one hand thrust into the front of a high, straight 
waistcoat. It cannot be doubted that they were like the 
sitters, for a very beautifully painted miniature of Bannister 

( 8 ) 



WASH I N GTO N 


NO. 2 









GILBERT STUART 


of an earlier date, in a similar scarlet coat, and showing the 
same cast of features, may still be seen in Newport. 

At the age of sixteen Stuart painted a portrait of his 
father, said to have been exhibited soon after the artist’s 
death in the old Athenaeum on Pearl Street, Boston. Since 
then all record of it has been lost. 

In 1770 Stuart had the benefit of the friendly advice of one 
qualified to help him in his art studies. During this year 
there came to America a Scotch gentleman, it was supposed 
for political reasons, but in reality for the benefit of his 
health, named Cosmo Alexander. But little is known of 
him. That he was a gentleman was clear, also that he was 
an artist of considerable talent, as he painted the portraits 
of a number of Scotch gentlemen while he lived in Newport. 
He remained in the Colonies about two years, and it was 
during his stay in Newport that he came into contact with 
the lad Stuart in whom he became very much interested, 
giving him all the instructions he was capable of in the way 
of his calling. Alexander was a great-grandson of George 
Jameson whom Walpole calls the Scottish Van Dyck. 

The young artist proved a good pupil and was quick to 
catch what was said to him. He made such rapid progress 
that Alexander took him back with him to Scotland when 
Stuart was in his eighteenth year, and his benefactor prom¬ 
ised to put him in the way of learning all that pertained to 
his profession. This he would undoubtedly have done but 

( 9 ) 


GILBERT STUART 

% 


for the fact that shortly after their arrival in Edinburgh he 
died, leaving the lad among strangers with scarcely money 
enough to pay his way. In Alexander’s last moments he 
commended young Stuart to the care of his friend Sir 
George Chalmers of Cutts, a Scottish painter who had mar¬ 
ried into the Alexander family. But here a new misfortune 
befell Stuart, for Sir George quickly followed his kinsman 
Alexander to the grave. Stuart was thus suddenly cast 
upon his own resources, and these were meagre ’enough, for 
he had not attained sufficient skill in his profession to sup¬ 
port himself satisfactorily. 

Sir George before his death was said to have found an 
opening for him in the University of Glasgow where he was 
to be given an opportunity to make good certain defects in 
his early education, but a search of the records fails to show 
his name in the matriculation register. 

Lacking means of support, he returned home on a 
collier bound for Nova Scotia, being obliged to work out 
his passage under circumstances of such hardship and dis¬ 
comfort that he never lost the impression made on his mind 
by the voyage, and could never be induced to speak of it. 

Stuart’s return to America from Scotland was in 1773, a 
time of intense excitement. The Boston Port Bill had just 
been received, assuring what the Stamp Act had intimated, 
and the tories and patriots were being marshaled according 

to their particular bias. It was not a time for the pursuit of 

(10) 


GILBERT STUART 


the peaceful arts ; it was a time for action and town-meet- 
ings. The colonies were on the verge of revolution and the 
echoes of Lexington and Concord had hardly died away. 
So indifferent to all this was Stuart the father, that he 
hied himself away to Nova Scotia, leaving his wife and 
family behind. 

Our artist had been abroad for about two years, and 
although his experience had been a hard one, still it was in 
many ways a good teacher. He had acquired much infor¬ 
mation, seen better pictures than he could have seen at 
home, and more important still, had been brought into con¬ 
tact with men of established reputations and with more 
worldly experience. Thirsting for information and quick to 
see the value in the work of others, he was better prepared 
than might have been expected to assume the role of a 
portrait-painter. 

His merits were at once recognized, and he was called 
upon by some of the wealthy Jews of Rhode Island to paint 
their portraits ; one picture, a whole-length of a Rabbi, was 
spoken of as a particularly successful likeness, and it is sup¬ 
posed to be still extant somewhere in New York. Among 
the portraits painted at this time were those of the Lopez 
family and other wealthy Hebrews who had settled in New¬ 
port. Commissions also came from Philadelphia where his 
uncle Captain Joseph Anthony was the head of “Anthony 
& Co.” prominent merchants. Dr. Waterhouse says the 

(ii) 


GILBERT STUART 


uncle was proud of his ingenious nephew and employed him 
to paint a portrait of himself, and of his wife and children. 
A miniature of Joseph Anthony Jr., son of Stuart’s uncle 
Captain Joseph Anthony is attributed by the family to the 
young artist; another miniature attributed to him is that of 
Lady Liston, wife of Sir Robert Liston. Other commissions 
came to him, and for one so young, and taking into consider¬ 
ation the unsettled state of the period, he was unusually 
successful. 

But when so engaged he did not forget or neglect to 
study drawing from life, of which he realized the great im¬ 
portance, so he and his friend Waterhouse clubbed together 
and hired a “ strong-muscled blacksmith ” as a model, pay¬ 
ing him half a dollar an evening. This was all very pleasant 
and very profitable, but the disturbed and exciting times 
began to make it more difficult to obtain sitters. War 
seemed inevitable, and the chances were that if there was 
to be an open rupture between England and America there 
would be no possibility of visiting Europe for a long time. 

At this period Gilbert Stuart was in his twentieth year 
and apparently had inherited from his father sentiments of 
a Tory nature, so that instead of going forth to battle for 
his native land as many youths of his own age and those 
even younger did, he embarked for England the day before 
the action at Bunker Hill. He sailed June 16th, 1775, on 
the last ship that escaped detention in Boston harbor, arriv¬ 
ing in London in September. 

(12) 


CHAPTER II 

Arrives in London.—Becomes church organist.—Calls 
on Benjamin West.—Lives with West.—Paints skat¬ 
ing PORTRAIT OF Mr. GRANT.-STUDENT DAYS WITH 

Trumbull.—Friendship with Dance. 

O NCE in the great city Stuart looked about him for 
cheap lodgings, easily obtainable at that time, and 
then occupied himself in finding employment. But sitters 
were not easily to be had, especially by one so little known, 
and if by chance an order was obtained, it was at so low 
a figure as to scarcely meet his daily wants. 

He was now in an atmosphere more suited to the ad¬ 
vancement of his art, and his great desire seemed to be to 
obtain advice and instruction under Benjamin West, at this 
time dean of American painters established in London. 
For some unknown reason this primary object of Stuart’s 
seemed to have weakened temporarily, and he remained in 
the great metropolis nearly two years before knocking at 
the Newman Street door of the kindly old Pennsylvanian. 

These months were occupied pardy with a sister art. 
His love of music, in which he was most proficient, vied with 
his love of painting, and he played well upon several instru- 

(13) 


GILBERT STUART 


ments, his favorites being the organ and the flute. A story 
has come down to us that his last night before sailing for 
Europe was spent in playing the flute under the window of 
one of Newport’s fair belles. He had also achieved some 
success as a composer. 

This knowledge of music now stood him in good stead, 
when as an unknown youth, in an unknown land, hungry 
and penniless, he walked one day down a London street 
known as Foster’s Lane, and passed the open door of a 
church through which came the strains of a feebly-played 
organ. Pausing a moment to listen, he followed up the 
sound and ventured inside the church as there was no one 
to object. He found at once a most interesting situation, 
for a number of candidates for the post of organist were 
playing in turn before the vestry. Stuart asked to be 
allowed to become a competitor which was granted, and 
his playing was so infinitely superior to that of the others, 
that it resulted in his election as organist, with a salary 
of thirty pounds a year, he having given satisfactory refer¬ 
ence as to his fitness and standing. His reference was 
William Grant, a Scotch gentleman to whom he had brought 
letters from America, but whose acquaintance he did not 
make until later. 

Having some kind of livelihood assured him in his 
position of organist, Stuart began that desultory dallying 
with art which later on occasionally left him without a crust 
for his daily bread. 

(14) 



WASHINGTON. NO. 3 





GILBERT STUART 


While his work itself was always serious, his tempera¬ 
ment never was, and he seems sometimes to have played 
cruel jokes upon himself as carelessly as he did upon others. 
For two years his career was almost lost to art, and only 
once in a while did he gather himself together and work at 
his painting. He had, however, to a marked degree, that 
odd resource of genius which enabled him to work best and 
catch up with lost time, when under the spur of necessity. 
In later days, with sitters besieging his doors, he would turn 
them away one by one, until the larder was empty and there 
was not a penny left in the purse, and then he would pro¬ 
duce one of his masterpieces. 

It was about this time when contending with adverse 
fortune that Stuart visited at Scion House (one of the coun¬ 
try seats of the Duke of Northumberland) where he painted 
the Duke and two of his children. He inquired of his patron 
whether he had any particular fancy about the composition 
of the picture, and after some little conversation he said: “I 
think my girl has found out that she is very pretty, and my 
boy has discovered it, and like a true boy is fond of teasing 
her about it.” Stuart took the hint and painted the picture 
of the girl looking at herself in the water, and the boy be¬ 
hind her throwing a stone in to spoil the mirror. He always 
loved the memory of the Duke, who showed a great interest 
in the struggling young artist. This Duke was the Lord 
Percy who was in Newport, Rhode Island, during the Rev¬ 
olution. 


(15) 


GILBERT STUART 


Such was the character, in outline, of the man who went 
to London to study under West, and after reaching the 
metropolis let two years slip by him without seeking his 
chosen master. Finally it was imperative that he should 
take some decided steps, and summoning up his courage he 
called upon the great painter without an introduction. 

“West was dining with some friends when 
a servant told him that some one wished 
to see him. He made answer T am en¬ 
gaged;’ but added after a pause, ‘Who is 
he?’ ‘I don’t know, sir; he says he is 
from America.’ Thereupon one of the 
guests, Mr. Wharton, said ‘I will go and 
see who it is.’ Wharton was from Phila¬ 
delphia and was intimate with West’s 
family. He went out and found a hand¬ 
some youth, dressed in a fashionable 
green coat. He talked with him for some 
time and finding he was a nephew of 
Joseph Anthony, one of the most prom¬ 
inent merchants in Philadelphia, and who 
happened to be a friend of Mr. Wharton, 
he at once told Mr. West that he was 
well connected. 

“Hearing this, Benjamin West came out 
and received his visitor cordially. Stuart 

06 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


told him of his long desire to see him, 
and his wish to make further progress in 
his calling, to all of which West listened 
with kindness and attention. At parting 
he requested Stuart to bring him some¬ 
thing that he had painted, which he did 
gladly, and in a few days he commenced 
his studies with West, and shortly after 
in the summer of 1777 was domiciled in 
the artist’s home.’ , 

At that time he was two and twenty years of age, a 
pale-looking but handsome man of a rather sad expression 
and with dark brown hair, which curled slightly about his 
neck. It was often said he looked like Charles I. 

When Mr. West was painting for George III a picture 
of Charles arrayed in the robes of the Garter, to be placed 
in Windsor Castle, he sent for Stuart to put the robes on 
him as a model. He was so struck with the resemblance 
that he called his students and others to see the “ extra¬ 
ordinary likeness”. Stuart was five feet, ten inches tall, 
with a powerful frame and graceful manner, and was exceed¬ 
ingly well-bred, but with an expression so searching that it 
amounted to severity—a quality which became more marked 
as he advanced in life. On one occasion a lady who was 
sitting to him said, “ Oh, he has such a searching look that 

(17) 


GILBERT STUART 


I am frightened to death ; he looks as if he knew everything 
I had ever done in my life. 

Just what Stuart learned from West it is difficult to 
imagine, unless it was how not to paint; for without de¬ 
siring or meaning to join the hue and cry of today against 
the art of West, but on the contrary protesting against 
the clamor which fails to consider the conditions that existed 
at the time in which he painted, and therefore fails to mete 
out to him the justice which is his due, there is surely 
nothing in the work of the one to suggest anything in the 
work of the other. 

The intimacy between Gilbert Stuart and Benjamin 
Waterhouse, begun in America, continued in England where 
they were engaged in studying their professions. They had 
studied and drawn together from life at home, and they 
were equally devoted in their study abroad. It appears that 
Stuart painted more than one portrait of Waterhouse. “I 
was often to him,” says the Doctor, “what Rembrant’s 
mother was to that wonderful Dutchman, an object at hand 
on which to exercise a ready pencil. I once prevailed upon 
him to try his skill on a canvas of three-quarter size, repre¬ 
senting me with both hands clasping my right knee, thrown 
over my left one, and looking steadfastly at a human skull 
placed upon a polished mahogany table.” As this is all we 
hear of this picture it was probably left unfinished or de¬ 
stroyed. Stuart was a poor correspondent and it is doubtful 

(18) 


GILBERT STUART 


whether he ever wrote a line to his father, mother or sister 
after he went to England. He seemed strongly attached to 
his family, yet he was too indolent or too self-centered to 
write. He was in this respect a strange character. 

For five long and doubtless weary years Stuart plodded 
on under the guidance of his gentle old master West, until, 
tired of doing some of the most important parts of West’s 
royal commissions for which his remuneration was probably 
not much more than his keep and tuition, and without even 
the chance of glory, he broke away and opened a studio for 
himself in New Burlington Street. 

Benjamin West with his characteristic generosity said to 
him after he had painted a full-length portrait of himself, 
“You have done well, Stuart, very well; now all you have 
to do is to go home and do better,” which advice the young 
artist followed to the letter, and soon outstripped his teacher. 
If Stuart did gain little in art from West, he gained much 
valuable benefit by familiar intercourse with persons of the 
first distinction, who were frequenters of the studio of the 
King’s painter. This was of great advantage to Stuart when 
he set up his own easel, and many of these men became his 
sitters. 

In 1782 he painted a full-length portrait of William 
Grant, Esq., of Congalton, skating in St. James Park, 
London. 

Mr. Grant was the Scotch gentleman to whom Stuart 

(19) 


GILBERT STUART 


was given letters from America and who had stood as refer¬ 
ence for the artist on his appointment as church organist 
early in his London life. His request was for a full-length 
portrait. Stuart said he felt great diffidence in undertaking 
a whole-length, but that there must always be a beginning, 
and so a day was accordingly appointed for the sitting. On 
entering the artist’s studio, Mr. Grant regretted the appoint¬ 
ment on account of the excessive coldness of the weather, 
and observed to Stuart that the day was better suited for 
skating than for sitting for one’s portrait. Stuart agreed to 
the skating, and said that early practice had made him very 
expert, and so together they went out to try their skill on the 
ice. Stuart’s celerity attracted crowds on the Serpentine 
River, the scene of their sport. His companion, although a 
well-made and graceful man, was not as active as himself, 
and there being a crack in the ice which made it dangerous 
to continue their amusement, Stuart told Mr. Grant to hold 
the skirt of his coat, and follow him off the river. They re¬ 
turned to Stuart’s rooms, where it occurred to him to paint 
Mr. Grant’s portrait in the act of skating, with the append¬ 
age of a winter scene in the background; Mr. Grant con¬ 
sented and the picture was immediately begun. In this 
picture Stuart has rendered with such latent force the grace¬ 
ful undulating motion of the skater, and with such skill and 
ability, that it put him at once in the front rank of the great 
portrait-painters of his day. 


(20) 



WASHINGTON, No. 4 








GILBERT STUART 


The remarkable merit of this picture, and the wilful un¬ 
reasonableness of painters in not signing their works, were 
curiously shown at a later day at the exhibition of “ Pictures 
by Old Masters” held at Burlington House in January, 1878. 
In the printed catalogue of the collection this picture was at¬ 
tributed to Gainsborough, and attracted and received marked 
attention. A writer in the “Saturday Review,” speaking of 
the exhibition, remarks: “Turning to the English School, we 
may observe a most striking portrait in number 128 in 
Gallery III. This is set down as ‘Portrait of W. Grant, Esq. 
of Congalton, skating in St. James Park.’ Thomas Gains¬ 
borough R. A. (?) ” 

The query is certainly pertinent, for while it is difficult 
to believe that we do not recognize Gainsborough’s hand 
in the graceful and silvery look in the landscape in the 
background, it is not easy to reconcile the flesh tones of 
the portrait itself with any preconceived notion of Gains¬ 
borough’s workmanship. The face has a peculiar firmness 
and decision in drawing which reminds one rather of Rae¬ 
burn than Gainsborough, though we do not mean by this 
to suggest in any way that Gainsborough wanted decision 
in either painting or drawing when he chose to exercise it. 
The discussion as to the authorship of this picture waxed 
warm, the champions of Raeburn, of Romney, and of Shee 
contending for the prizes, and their contention was only set 

at rest by a grandson of the subject coming forward with 

(21) 


GILBERT STUART 


a card saying that the picture was by “ the great portrait 
painter of America, Gilbert Stuart.” And to Stuart it did 
justly belong. 

Soon after this picture was painted (1782) it was ex¬ 
hibited at Somerset House and attracted so much notice 
that Stuart said he was afraid to go to the Academy to meet 
the looks and answer the inquiries of the multitude. Mr. 
Grant went one day to the exhibition dressed as his portrait 
represented him. The original was immediately recognized, 
when the crowd followed him closely, exclaiming, “That is 
he, there is the gentleman.” 

Stuart was then attending the discourses of Sir Joshua 
Reynolds, studying anatomy with the celebrated Dr. Cruik- 
shank, drawing during the evenings in the life school, and 
painting with West, who was so fully employed that he 
could not complete the work he had undertaken as fast as 
it was required. It was at this time that Stuart took some 
especially fine colors to Sir Joshua Reynolds as a present 
from Benjamin West. What followed is thus related by 
Miss Jane Stuart. 

“ Reynolds took him into his painting-room to show him 
his picture of Mrs. Siddons as the Tragic Muse. Sir Joshua 
seeing him so delighted, invited him to come and see it 
when it was finished, which my father was only too happy to 
do. Some time later, on going to Reynolds’ room he found 

him full of anxiety, and busily giving the finishing touches 

(22) 


GILBERT STUART 


to the picture. His hair (or rather his wig) was very much 
disheveled, his stockings rather loose, and his general ap¬ 
pearance disordered. The instant my father looked at the 
painting he caught his breath with a feeling of disappoint¬ 
ment. Sir Joshua perceived this and asked him if he did 
not think he had improved it. Stuart answered ‘ It could 
not have been improved,’ and asked ‘Why did you not take 
another canvas?’ Sir Joshua replied ‘That is true.’ My 
father realized what a very great liberty he had taken, and 
was exceedingly abashed, but the good-natured Sir Joshua 
bore the criticism very amiably, possibly thinking that the 
opinion of so young a man was not of any moment.” 

Stuart told many amusing stories of his life under the 
hospitable roof of Benjamin West's house on Newman 
Street. On one occasion he said his master had made him 
promise to finish a picture early the next morning. Stuart 
finished the work bright and early the following day, “That 
done, Rafe (West’s son) and I began to fence, I, with my 
maule stick, and he with his father’s. I had just driven 
Rafe up to the wall, with his back to one of his father’s best 
pictures, when the old gentleman, as neat as a lad of wax, 
with his hair powdered, and with his white silk stockings 
and yellow morocco slippers on, popped into the room, look¬ 
ing as if he had just stepped out of a band-box. We had 
made so much noise that we did not hear him come down 
the gallery or open the door. ‘ There, you dog ! ’ says I to 

(23) 


GILBERT STUART 


Rafe, ‘ there, I have you ! and nothing but your background 
relieves you! ’ The old gentleman could not help smiling 
at my technical joke, but soon looked very stern: ‘ Mr. 
Stuart,’ said he, ‘ is this the way you use me ?’ ‘ Why, 

what’s the matter, sir, I have neither hurt the boy nor the 
background!’ He replied, ‘Sir, when you knew I had prom¬ 
ised to finish the picture today, how can you answer that to 
me or to yourself? ’ ‘ Sir,’ said I, ‘ do not condemn me with¬ 

out examining the easel. I have finished the picture; please 
to look at it.’ He did so and complimented me highly.” 

Stuart and Trumbull were both pupils of West at the 
same time; Stuart was the senior and having made 
greater progress than his friend, thought it incumbent on 
him to assist his fellow-pupil in his studies. This he did to 
their mutual advantage. Trumbull had the use of but one 
eye, and, singularly enough, Stuart found it out in this way. 
The story was told by Thomas Sully who had it from Stuart, 
who having been puzzled by one of Trumbull’s drawings, said 
to him: “Why, it looks as if it had been drawn by a man 
with one eye ” ; to which Trumbull, who appeared much hurt 
replied: “ I take it very unkindly, sir, that you should make 
the remark.” Stuart, not understanding him, asked him 
what he meant, “I presume, sir,” answered Trumbull, “that 
you know I have the sight of but one eye, and any allusion 
to it in this manner is unkind.” “ Now,” said Stuart to 
Sully, “I never suspected it, and only the oddness of the 
drawing suggested it.” 


(24) 


GILBERT STUART 


Stuart described the course of study recommended by 
Benjamin West, and mentioned an occasional exercise that 
he required of his pupils for giving them facility and accuracy 
of execution, which was the faithful representation of some 
object or other, casually presented to the eye, such as a 
drapery thrown carelessly over a chair. Stuart’s successful 
performance of one of these tasks attracted the notice and 
approbation of an eminent artist, which he said was very 
flattering to him. Stuart had at this time a room for painting 
appropriated to himself, under his master’s roof. One day a 
gentleman entered, and having looked around the room, 
seated himself behind the young artist who was at work at 
his easel. Stuart felt somewhat embarrassed, but Mr. West 
soon after coming in, introduced the stranger as Mr. Nathan¬ 
iel Dance. Mr. West left the room, but Mr. Dance re¬ 
mained and entered into conversation with Stuart, who ven¬ 
tured to ask his opinion of his work, which was a portrait. 
'‘Young man, you have done everything that need be done ; 
your work is very correct.” The young painter was of 
course delighted with the approbation of the veteran, especi¬ 
ally as he knew the reputation of Mr. Dance for skill, cor¬ 
rectness of eye, and blunt candor. Mr. Dance was one of 
those persons who petitioned the King in 1768 to found the 
Royal Academy, and he was thought worthy to be the third 
on the list; his name appearing after that of Zuccarilli, and 

before that of Richard Wilson. 

(25) 


CHAPTER III 

Stuart established as a portrait painter in London.— 
Prominent sitters.—Important portraits. —His ex¬ 
travagant life in London.—Marries Miss Charlotte 
Coates. 

S TUART was now well-established as a portrait painter, 
and was fully launched upon the sea of prosperity. 
Dunlap in his book fixes the date from the following letter 
written by Mrs. Hopner dated “June 3rd, 1788. To-day the 
exhibition closes. If Hopner should be as successful next 
year as he has been this, he will have established a repu¬ 
tation. Stuart has taken a house, I am told, of ^150 a year 
rent in Berner’s street, and is going to set up as a great 
man.” In this, Dunlap has made one of his many errors, 
for as early as 1785, Stuart was living in a house he had 
rented in New Burlington street, and that year he exhibited 
three portraits at the Royal Academy. 

The fact that Benjamin West and Sir Joshua Reynolds 
sat to Stuart, helped to bring him into more general notice. 
Having now gained a position in the front rank of English 
portrait-painters, he demanded and received a price for his 
pictures, only exceeded by the sums paid to Sir Joshua Rey- 

(26) 



WASHINGTON, No. 5 







GILBERT STUART 


nolds and Gainsborough. In this connection Stuart related 
the following to Thomas Sully: 

“Lord Sir Vincent, the Duke of Northumberland, and 
Colonel Barre came unexpectedly one morning into my 
room, locked the door, and then made known the object of 
their visit. They understood that I was under pecuniary 
embarrassment and offered me assistance, which I declined. 
They then said they would sit for their portraits. Of course 
I was ready to serve them. They then advised that I make 
it a rule that half the price must always be paid at the first 
sitting. They insisted on setting the example, and I fol¬ 
lowed the practice ever after this delicate mode of showing 
their friendship.” 

For a time Gilbert Stuart lived in splendor, like a lord 
and in reckless extragavance. Money rolled in upon him, 
and he spent it lavishly, without a thought for the morrow, 
nor cared he what became of his earnings. His rooms were 
thronged with sitters waiting their turn, who thought it a 
privilege to sit to him, and who were ready to pay anything 
that he thought proper to charge them. 

To himself alone, and not to any want of patronage or 
lack of opportunity is due his failure to provide against old 
age, a rainy day and that pecuniary embarrassment that 
dogged his footsteps as an old man. He was always of 
great interest to his sitters, and provided the best of enter¬ 
tainment for them. 


(2 7) 


GILBERT STUART 


Dr. Waterhouse said of his colloquial powers: “In con¬ 
versation and confabulation he was inferior to no man among 
us. He made it a point to keep those talking who were 
sitting to him for their portraits, each in his own way, mak¬ 
ing them feel free and at ease. This called for all his re¬ 
sources of judgment. To military men he spoke of battles by 
land and sea; with statesmen, on Hume’s and Gibbon’s his¬ 
tories; with lawyers on jurisprudence, or remarkable criminal 
trials; with merchants in their way; with the man of leisure 
in his way; and with the ladies in all ways. When putting 
the rich farmer on his canvas, he would go along with him 
from seed time to harvest; he would descant on the nice 
points of a horse, an ox, a cow, sheep, or pig, and surprise 
him with his just remarks on the process of making cheese 
and butter, or astonish him with his profound knowledge of 
manures, or the food of plants. As to national and indi¬ 
vidual character, few men could say more to the purpose 
as far as history and acute personal observation would 
carry him. He had wit at will—always ample, sometimes 
redundant.” 

Miss Jane Stuart is authority for the statement that 
when President Washington was sitting for his portrait in 
the summer studio of the artist in Germantown near Phila¬ 
delphia, Stuart gained his entire self-possession, and was 
able by his conversation, particularly as to horses, to arouse 
the interest of Washington, and thus secure the expression 
he desired. 


(28) 


GILBERT STUART 


Of Stuart’s life in London about this time Herbert, 
in his “Irish Varieties” says, “he had taken a splendid house 
and lived expensively. Among other servants he had a 
French cook. He began giving dinners and invited forty- 
two persons to dine with him. These were men of talent in 
some professional line — painters, poets, musicians, droll 
fellows, actors, authors, etc. After dinner he said to his 
friends “I can’t have you all every day in the week, and I 
have contrived it so that the party shall vary without further 
trouble. I have put up seven cloak-pins in my hall, so that 
the first seven to come in may hang up their cloaks and hats: 
the eighth man seeing them full, will go away and probably 
attend earlier the next day. Then it would not be likely 
that any of the party of one day would come on the next, or 
until the time for the forty-two was expended; and Sunday 
would not be excepted. This compact was understood with¬ 
out trouble of naming or'inviting. I had a different company 
every day and no jealousies of a preference given to any¬ 
one.” 

“I tasked myself to six sitters a day,” said Stuart. 
“These done, I flung down my palette and pencils, took 
my hat and ran about and around the park for an hour, 
then home, got ready for dinner, approached my drawing 
room with the certainty of meeting as clever men as could 
be found in society ; and what added to this comfort, I knew 
not what, or who they might be until I saw them, and this 

(29) 


GILBERT STUART 


produced a variety every day without any trouble. Oh, it 
was a delightful solace after such labor ! I assure you, my 
friend, it was the greatest of all human luxuries.” 

“It must have been expensive?” 

“It was more than I calculated on, but it enabled me to 
support my labor on six sitters a day.” 

“ How did Mr. West approve of it?” 

“He shook his head and observed that it would eat 
itself out. It did so; for in about six months the party was 
broken up, some going into the country, others out of the 
country—John Kemble, Irish Johnstone, and others. It died 
a natural death greatly to our regret.” 

Stuart was on the very best of footing with his brethren 
of the brush, and with Gainsborough, his senior by more 
than a quarter of a century, he painted a whole-length por¬ 
trait of Henry, Earl of Carmarron, in his robes, which has 
been engraved in mezzotinto by William Ward, the cele¬ 
brated English engraver, with the names of both painters 
inscribed upon the plate. This alone shows the high estima¬ 
tion in which Stuart was held by his contemporaries, and it 
would be most interesting to know which parts were the 
work of Stuart, and which were done by his famous collab¬ 
orator. 

About this period Boydell was in the midst of the pub¬ 
lication of his great work, “The Shakespeare Gallery,” to 
which the first artists of the day contributed, and Stuart 

(30) 



WASHINGTON, No. 6 











GILBERT STUART 


was commissioned by the Alderman to paint for the gallery, 
portraits of the leading painters and engravers who were 
engaged upon the work. Thus for Boydell he painted the 
superb half-length portrait of his master West, and of the 
engravers Wollett and Hall, now in the National Portrait 
Gallery, St. Martins Place, London. He painted also for 
Boydell his own (Stuart’s) portrait, as well as portraits of 
Reynolds, Copley, Gainsborough, Ozias Humphrey, Earlom, 
Facius, Heath, William Sharp and of Boydell himself, and 
several others. 

Gilbert Stuart was an intimate friend of the actor, John 
Philip Kemble, and painted his portrait several times ; one 
picture is in the National Portrait Gallery, and another he 
painted in costume as Richard III, which has been beautifully 
engraved by George Keating in mezzotinto with much of the 
spirit and force of the original painting. The picture did 
belong to Sir Henry Halford, but the engraved plate is in¬ 
scribed to the effect that the original painting was in the 
possession of John Pybus, Esq. It also gives the painter as 
“Gabriel” Stuart, and when it came to the eye of the artist, 
he laughed and said, “you see they will make an angel of 

yy 

me. 

Other prominent sitters to Stuart in London were 
Hugh, Duke of Northumberland, the Lord Percy of the 
Battle of Bunker Hill; Admiral Sir John Jarvis, afterwards 
Earl St. Vincent; Isaac Barre, Dr. Frothingham and the 

Dukes of Manchester and of Leinster. 

(31) 


GILBERT STUART 


From these names alone it can be seen that Stuart 
was in touch with persons of the highest consideration, and 
that they were not only his patrons, but his friends. He 
kept open house, dispensing a princely hospitality, and was 
much sought after, being the delight of every gathering in 
which he made his appearance. He was then remarkable 
for the extreme elegance of his dress. His musical parties 
were composed of the best musicians in London, and at 
these concerts he took a prominent part, as he himself played 
well on several instruments. His extravagant manner of 
living, combined with his lack of knowledge of business 
matters, was his undoing; he seldom took a receipt and kept 
few accounts. Such prodigality in a young artist shows what 
Stuart’s temperament was, and it is not surprising that he 
later on became very much embarrassed in his circumstances. 

Stuart had not been long established in his London 
house when he married Miss Charlotte Coates, daughter of 
Dr. Coates of Berkshire, England. 

Miss Jane Stuart says of this union: “ Miss Coates’ 
brother and Stuart had met at the anatomical lectures of 
Dr. Cruikshank. They soon became intimate friends, and 
although the Doctor was very much attached to him and 
admired his genius, he was perfectly aware of his reckless 
habits, and with the rest of her family opposed the match 
violently, but at length consented, and they were married on 
May ioth, 1786, by the Rev. Mr. Springate. She was ex- 

(32) 


GILBERT STUART 


tremely pretty, but her greatest charm in the eyes of Stuart 
was her singing. Her voice was a superb contralto, and 
when speaking, she was remarkably attractive. Fuseli was 
delighted with her singing, and often made her repeat her 
songs. The remembrance of this was a delight to her in 
after years, for he was distinguished for his fastidious and 
cultivated taste.” 

The friendship between Stuart and Sir Nathaniel Dance, 
which began before the painter entered upon an independent 
career, continued during the time they were together in 

London. Dance was a son of George Dance, the architect, 

% 

who designed the Mansion House. Nathaniel Dance dis- 
tinguished himself as a historical painter; he married Mrs. 
Dammer a wealthy widow, and thereupon renounced his 
profession and was elected a member of Parliament. In 
speaking of Mr. Dance’s interest in him Stuart told Mr. 
Fisher that a short time after taking rooms in London, sub¬ 
sequent to leaving Mr. West, Mr. Dance called upon him 
and communicated his intention of retiring into the country, 
at the same time inviting him to come to his house and take 
such articles in the way of his profession as would be service¬ 
able to him ; that as he was just commencing, he would find 
ready to his hand many things he would have occasion for. 
Stuart happened to call in the absence of his friend and 
merely took a palette and a few pencils. Mr. Dance a day 
or two before the sale of his furniture, inquired of his servant 

( 33 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


if Mr. Stuart had been there, and on being informed that he 
had, and of the moderation he had shown in availing himself 
of the offer made, immediately sent him a mass of material 
for his painting-room, not only in the highest degree useful, 
but far more costly than the young painter’s finances could 
have permitted him to purchase at that time. The palette, 
Mr. Dance afterwards informed him, was the one formerly 
owned and used by Thomas Hudson, the master of Sir 
Joshua Reynolds. 

Mr. Fraser also said that when Stuart spoke of his 
palette he made the exhibition of it doubly interesting by a 
short dissertation on the use of it, describing the colors em¬ 
ployed by him for portrait painting, with the several grada¬ 
tions. “This was done at my request, and with a readiness 
and freedom characteristic of great liberality and kindness.” 

Another anecdote related by Fraser was as follows: 
“Dr. Johnson called one morning on Mr. West, to converse 
with him on American affairs. After some time, Mr. West 
said he had a young American living with him, from whom 
he mieht derive some information, and introduced Stuart. 
The conversation continued (Stuart being invited to take 
part in it) and the Doctor observed to Mr. West that the 
young man spoke very good English, and turning to Stuart 
rudely asked him where he had learned it. Stuart very 
promptly replied: ‘ Sir, I can better tell you where I did not 
learn it—it was not from your dictionary ! ’ Johnson seemed 
aware of his own abruptness, and was not offended.” 

( 34 ) 


CHAPTER IV 

Visits Ireland.—Life in Dublin.—Paints many Irish por¬ 
traits.—Financial Difficulties.—Sails for America. 
—Meets with Robertson. 

T WO years after his marriage in 1788, Gilbert Stuart 
was induced to go to Ireland. It has been said that 
he went to escape from imprisonment for debt, an ignominy 
he had more than once suffered during his residence in 
London. 

He had been advised to take this step by the Duke of 
Rutland, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had been 
very pressing in urging Stuart to set up his easel across the 
channel. He finally yielded to his wishes and went to Dub¬ 
lin, but on his arrival it happened that the funeral cortege of 
the Duke was then passing through the city. 

The disappointment that he felt of course was great, 
but the visit was not an unprofitable one. “ The moment 
it was known that he had arrived,” writes Miss Stuart, “he 
was called upon by friends and the public, and was soon 
fully employed by the nobility.” 

At the time that Stuart visited Dublin there was con¬ 
siderable interest manifested for art in that city. The Royal 
Academy was founded in 1768, but as early as 1731, the 
Dublin artists had formed a society, and ultimately put 

( 35 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


up a building which was first opened with a collection of 
pictures in 1763, and although there was a schism in 1773, 
the annual exhibition was kept up in Dublin till 1800. 

“ Stuart was delighted with the society he met in Ire¬ 
land,” writes his daughter, Miss Stuart, “the elegant man¬ 
ners, the wit and the hospitality of the upper class of the 
Irish, suited his genial temperament. He was so much be¬ 
loved by them that they tried to claim him as a fellow- 
countryman. When Washington Allston was there he heard 
them express their grief that Stuart should have left Ireland 
and say that nobody ever painted a head as their Irish 
Stuart could. 

Stuart had taken a place not far from Dublin called 
“Stillorgan” where he amused himself with farming and 
gardening. He was very popular with the gentlemen of the 
surrounding neighborhood who gave him frequent dinner¬ 
parties as was the custom of the day. In fact it might be 
said that the genial hospitality of these sport-loving gentle¬ 
man was largely responsible for his misfortunes, particularly 
as he felt it necessary to make acknowledgment for so much 
incessant and cordial attention; hence another series of ex¬ 
travagant dinners and entertainments that he could ill afford. 

Stuart’s reputation as a portrait painter in London im¬ 
mediately secured him a large practice here, and he had 
among his sitters most of the prominent personages of the 
time in Ireland. His portraits of the Duke of Leinster, 

(36) 


GILBERT STUART 


Hon. John Beresford, William Brownlow, William Burton- 
Cunyngham, Lord Fitzgibbon, Henry Grattan, and John 
Foster, the Speaker, were engraved in mezzotinto by C. 
H. Hodges, who came to Dublin from London for the 
purpose. They were published by George Caven at Fleet 
Street, London and at his House Grafton Street, Dublin. 
Some of Gilbert Stuart’s finest works are to be found in 
and about the Irish capital. 

Stuart was hopelessly in debt during his entire stay in 
Ireland, and for a short time in 1790 was confined in a 
debtor’s prison. He boasted of having “painted himself out 
of jail” in Dublin, where he got around the jailer by painting 
his portrait, in consideration of which honor the good man 
connived at his escape. Anxious to get away from his em¬ 
barrassments, and with the fever to return to America strong 
within him, he began quite a number of portraits in Dublin, 
for which he was paid “ half price ” at the first sittings, and 
having thus acquired the wherewithal to get to America, he 
left his work unfinished without an apparent qualm, with the 
remark, “The artists of Dublin will get employment in finish¬ 
ing them ”. 

Breaking away from his friends, and throwing over all 
his engagements, he sailed direct from Dublin to America, 
although he had pledged himself to go back to England and 
paint a number of portraits. Stuart had become uneasy and 
restless ; in fact his long absence from home had made him 

( 37 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


discontented, and he had withal an intense desire to paint 
Washington’s portrait, in which he saw a golden harvest 
waiting for him in America. So he sailed away, agreeing to 
paint a portrait of the ship’s owner in exchange for his 
transportation. 

Among his fellow-passengers was Walter Robertson, an 
Irish miniature painter, who was the son of a Dublin jeweler, 
and the brother of Charles Robertson who was also a minia¬ 
ture painter. Robertson was anxious to better his fortunes 
in America, and was glad to leave Dublin where he had been 
declared a bankrupt. For a time these two “ financial un¬ 
fortunates ” got on well together, but at length they quar¬ 
reled, their long confinement on ship-board doubtless having 
something to do with it; but as they neared land they be¬ 
came reconciled, and even learned to like each other for a 
time. Robertson was a remarkable colorist, a quality that in 
itself must have attracted Stuart; but unfortunately he lacked 
almost entirely the quality of originality, and seemed content 
to spend his days in copying the work of other artists especi¬ 
ally that of Stuart. This he carried to such lengths as finally 
to annoy and alienate Stuart who withdrew his friendship 
from Robertson and bestowed it upon Benjamin Trott, a 
rival miniature painter of decided talents though by no means 
as good a colorist. He worked in New York and Philadel¬ 
phia copying Stuart’s portraits of Washington in miniature. 
In 1795 he sailed for India where he died. 

(38) 



WASHINGTON, No. 7 





CHAPTER V 

Arrives in New York.—Paints portraits there.—Moves 
to Philadelphia.—Portraits of President Washing¬ 
ton.—Moves to Washington.—Paints portraits of 

PROMINENT PEOPLE AT THE CAPITAL. 

G ILBERT STUART landed in New York in 1792 and 
was received most cordially by his countrymen. He 
had gone away a poor youth from a small New England sea¬ 
port, to win his way in the world. He had achieved fame 
and honor in foreign lands and had come back a painter 
without an equal in America. At the time of his return to 
his native land there were only four portrait painters of note 
in the country. These were Charles Willson Peale, Mathew 
Pratt, Ralph Earle, and John Trumbull, each of them a 
notable artist and much more capable than is commonly ad¬ 
mitted, probably owing to the fact that their talents had 
been obscured by the brilliant prowess of the new comer. 
Stuart, whose return marks an important epoch in the his¬ 
tory of American art, gave to it an impetus which lasted 
well on into the century in which he died. 

A painting-room was secured for him in Stone street, 
near William street, New York, and it was soon known that 

(39) 


GILBERT STUART 


he was prepared to receive sitters. Orders poured in upon 
him, and had he laid by but a portion of the sum that he 
received, his savings would have been an ample provision 
for the future of his family; but he was as fond as ever of 
society, and loved to entertain and be entertained, and when 
at table with his merry companions he still delighted to tell 
a good story and sing a good song. With such tendencies, 
and with no knowledge of business, it is hardly necessary to 
say that liberal as were the prices paid him, and great as was 
his facility for throwing off work (for Stuart was an ex¬ 
tremely rapid painter) still he had always an empty purse. 
But embarrassing as this was, he found a way of working 
himself out of any pressing difficulty; for with his brush he 
could in a few hours wipe out a debt, and if the wants of 
the day were supplied, he never seemed to think or care for 
the future. As he had met want before, so he could meet 
it again, and thus he continued to meet it till advancing years 
and declining health made it laborious ; then, and not till 
then, did he see the folly of having neglected in his prime 
to provide for old age. 

“Soon after his arrival in New York,” says his daugh¬ 
ter, “Stuart received a letter from his brother-in-law Mr. 
Henry Newton, collector at Halifax, Nova Scotia, request¬ 
ing him to come there and paint the picture of the Duke of 
Kent, who offered to send a ship-of-war for him, but unfor¬ 
tunately he declined, for it was his fixed determination to 

(40) 


GILBERT STUART 


paint a portrait of Washington at any sacrifice. He always 
looked upon his declining this offer as the most signal mis¬ 
take of his life.” 

Tuckerman says of this period of the artist's life: 
“Gilbert Stuart’s most cherished anticipation, when he left 
England for America, was the execution of a portrait of 
Washington—possessing, as he did, the greatest personal 
admiration for his character. His own nature was more 
remarkable for strength than refinement; he was eminently 
fitted to appreciate practical talents and moral energy; the 
brave truths of Nature, rather than her more delicate effects, 
were grasped and reproduced by his skill; he might not have 
done justice to the ideal contour of Shelley, or the gentle 
features of Mary of Scotland, but could perfectly have re¬ 
flected the dormant thunder of Mirabeau’s countenance and 
the argumentative abstraction that knit the brows of Samuel 
Johnson. He was a votary of truth in her boldest manifesta¬ 
tions, and a delineator of character in its normal and sus¬ 
tained elements. The robust, the venerable, the morally 
picturesque, the mentally characteristic, he seized by intui¬ 
tion ; those lines of physiognomy which channeled by will, 
the map of inward life, which years of consistent thought and 
action trace upon the countenance; the hue that to an ob¬ 
servant eye indicates almost the daily vocation; the air sug¬ 
gestive of authority or obedience, firmness or vacillation ; the 
glance of the eye, which is the measure of natural intelli- 

(40 


GILBERT STUART 


gence and the temper of the soul; the expression of the 
mouth, that infallibly betrays the disposition; the tint of the 
hair and mould of features, not only attesting the period of 
life, but revealing what that life has been, whether toilsome, 
or inert, self-indulgent or adventurous, careworn or pleasur¬ 
able—these and such as these records of humanity, Stuart 
transferred, in vivid colors and most trustworthy outlines, to 
the canvas. 

“Instinctive, therefore, was his zeal to delineate Wash¬ 
ington ; a man who, of all the sons of fame, most clearly and 
emphatically wrote his character in deeds upon the world’s 
heart; whose traits required no imagination to give them 
effect, and no metaphysical insight to unravel their perplex¬ 
ity, but were brought out by the exigencies of the time in 
distinct relief, as bold, fresh and true as the verdure of spring 
and the lights of the firmament, equally recognized by the 
humblest peasant, and the most gifted philosopher.” 

While Congress was in session at Philadelphia in 1794, 
Stuart went thither with a letter of introduction to Washing¬ 
ton from the Hon. John Jay. Soon after his arrival in the 
city he called upon the President and left his card with the 
letter. After returning from a visit he had made to the 
country, he found a note from Washington’s secretary Mr. 
Dandridge, inviting him to pass that evening with the Presi¬ 
dent. On his arrival at the house, he was ushered into a 
room which he supposed was an antechamber, but to his sur- 

(42) 


GILBERT STUART 


prise he found himself in the immediate presence of the great 
man. Although accustomed to the first society of Europe, 
and endowed with great self-possession, he afterwards de¬ 
clared that for a moment he lost his usual self-control, with 
him an experience quite unprecedented. But the President 
came forward and addressed him by name,—someone pres¬ 
ent having told him, I suppose, that it was Mr. Stuart. The 
latter soon recovered himself and entered into conversation, 
an art in which he was well versed. The President then in¬ 
troduced him to the company. 

The first portrait of Washington painted from life by 
Gilbert Stuart, is a bust showing the right side of the face. 
The pictures of this type are to my mind without doubt the 
finest portraits of Washington that Stuart ever painted, al¬ 
though the least known. Stuart’s later pictures known as 
the “ Lansdowne ” (full-length) and the “Athenaeum” are the 
popular portraits of Washington, particularly the latter which 
has become so well known the world over, that it has been 
said that if Washington returned to earth and did not re¬ 
semble it, he would be looked upon as an imposter. The 
popularity of the last named portrait has largely been 
brought about by its having hung for ninety years in a public 
gallery, easily available for reproduction, while the early 
paintings have been in comparative seclusion, until the 
Gibbs-Channing picture was purchased from Mr. Avery by 
the Metropolitan Museum of New York. If these had been 

(43) 


GILBERT STUART 


more accessible to the public the later paintings could never 
have usurped the rightful place that the first paintings of 
Washington were entitled to. 

What makes these early portraits particularly interesting 
is that they are entirely distinct in type from the commonly 
known “ Stuart-Washington’s.” They are not exactly what 
might be called replicas; Stuart painted some fourteen copies 
(see the following list of these portraits), but they all ex¬ 
hibit some little variations. 

History has taught us to honor George Washington 
as a man, as well as a statesman, and it is gratifying to be 
able to visualize him as such in these early portraits of our 
great President. 

A very interesting comparison can be made between the 
original bust by Houdon ;—the life-mask that belonged for 
many years to the sculptor, W. W. Story, and which recently 
came into the possession of the late J. P. Morgan of New 
York;—and Gilbert Stuart’s first portraits of Washington, 
when the harmony of all three will be readily seen to be very 
convincing as to their truthfulness. 

We are fortunate in being able to fix on almost the 
exact day of Stuart’s arrival in Philadelphia. According to 
a letter of Mrs. Jay, dated November 15th, 1794, addressed 
to her husband Hon. John Jay then in London, she says, 
“In ten days he (Stuart) is to go to Philadelphia to take a 
likeness of the President.” 


( 44 ) 





WASHINGTON, No. 9 




GILBERT STUART 


In Philadelphia Stuart resided in a house on the south¬ 
east corner of Fifth and Chestnut streets, where the present 
Drexel building stands. Here it was that he painted his first 
portrait of Washington, and it was only when he was over¬ 
run with work, and his time was too much taken up with 
callers, that he moved to Germantown, where the ruins of 
the building in which he painted can still be seen. Stuart’s 
house on Chestnut street was daily the resort of many prom¬ 
inent and fashionable persons. 

Philadelphia at that time was unusually attractive. 
It was here that Congress met and the society of the place 
included representatives of the best people from all parts 
of the Union and from many foreign lands, and it was 
here also that Mrs. Washington gave those delightful enter¬ 
tainments which have been so well described in “The Re¬ 
publican Court in the Days of Washington,” by Rufus W. 
Griswold. 

Stuart knew almost every one, and it was his good for¬ 
tune to have for his sitters the lovely women who gathered 
around Mrs. Washington, and the soldiers and statesmen 
who were the tried friends of the President. In these gay 
assemblages that were almost of nightly occurrence, he fre¬ 
quently took part, and in a manner always creditable to him¬ 
self, whether it was a musical party, a social gathering, or a 
ceremonious entertainment. At such times he had always 
a pleasant word with those persons who were known to 

( 45 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


him ; he played well on a number of instruments, and had 
a fair voice, and his wit was quick and sparkling; and if 
now and then his high temper came to the surface for a 
moment, it was more under control than in after years. 

It was at this time he painted many of the beautiful 

# 

portraits that have come down to us,—Mrs. Washington, 
Mrs. Madison, Mrs. Laurence Lewis, Mrs. William Bing¬ 
ham, the Marchioness D’Yrujo, and many others whose 
names it would be easy to recall. 

G. W. P. Custis, in his “Recollections and Private 
Memoirs,” says: “The first portrait of Washington painted 
by Gilbert Stuart created a great sensation in Philadelphia.” 
It was followed by the celebrated full-length pictures painted 
for Mr. Bingham and the Marquis of Lansdowne. Rem¬ 
brandt Peale, in his lecture on the Portraits of Washington, 
says: “ Mr. Stuart’s first portrait of Washington was painted 
simultaneously with mine in September, 1795. From this 
first one he made five copies (the list given later of the 
portraits showing the right side of the face records no less 
than fourteen, so there were evidently nine copies with 
which Peale was probably unacquainted), but becoming dis¬ 
satisfied with it some years afterwards, sold it for $200 to 
Winstanley, the landscape painter. Of this I was informed 
by Dr. Thornton, in Washington, soon after its occurrence, 
so that it was not literally rubbed out, as was supposed.” 
A more detailed description of the painting of the Washing¬ 
ton portraits is recorded later. 

(46) 


GILBERT STUART 


In the spring of 1795 Stuart was elected a member of 
the American Academy. He acknowledged the compliment 
in the following note: 


“Philadelphia, May 9th, 1795. 

To the Gentlemen of the American Academy. 

‘ Gentlemen : This morning I received your letter, an¬ 
nouncing my election to your Society. It is particularly 
flattering to me to be thought worthy of choice in any society 
among my countrymen, but more especially when that so¬ 
ciety is formed of artists. 

Permit me, Gentlemen, to thank you, and assure you 
that my best endeavors shall not be wanting to promote the 
interest and honor of that Society. 

Gentlemen, believe me your closely attached friend, 

G. Stuart.’ ” 

From Philadelphia, Stuart moved to Washington, where 
his brush was at once much in demand. This was as early 
as 1803. His studio was on F, near Seventh Street. Ex¬ 
actly how long he remained there cannot be accurately de¬ 
termined, for he left but few papers, (he had the greatest 
dislike to writing)—and so all details of this kind must be 
treated in a general way. Stuart was in Georgetown while 
Madison was serving as Secretary of State, and at that time 

( 47 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


he painted a portrait of Mrs. Madison as a companion pic¬ 
ture to the one he had painted of her husband. 

Among numerous other portraits executed by Stuart 
were those of Colonel and Mrs. John Tayloe of the Octagon 
House, Washington, D. C., also of Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. 
Cutts, Mrs. Cutts being a sister of Mrs. Madison. In the 
background of the portrait of Anna Payne (Mrs. Cutts) is to 
be found an exaggerated outline of the artist’s own features 
The story runs, that while Anna Payne’s portrait was being 
painted, that lively young woman entered into an animated 
discussion with the artist, as to which feature of the face is 
the most expressive. Mr. Stuart gave his verdict in favor of 
the nose, while Miss Payne contended for the superior claims 
of the eyes and mouth. Stuart, who greatly relished a joke, 
even at his own expense, presented to the sitter next morn¬ 
ing a canvas upon which his own profile, with the nose some¬ 
what exaggerated, occupied the place of the usual drapery in 
the background, inquiring with a triumphant smile, whether 
he had not proved to her satisfaction that the nose was the 
most expressive feature of the face. Although the laugh 
was against her, Miss Payne was so much pleased to have 
secured a profile of her old friend, that she insisted that the 
very odd background should remain a part of the portrait. 

When Gilbert Stuart came to Washington, D. C. to 
paint the portrait of President Jefferson he brought one of 
the replicas of his famous Washington “Athenaeum” por- 

(48) 


GILBERT STUART 


traits with him ; this picture he sold to Colonel John Tayloe 
of Mount Airy, whose portrait with that of his wife, who was 
a daughter of Governor Benjamin Ogle of Maryland, he 

4 

painted in 1804. These portraits with the Washington 
painting were presented to the Corcoran Art Gallery in 
1902 by Mrs. Benjamin Ogle Tayloe. 


( 49 ) 


CHAPTER VI • 


Moves to Boston.—Improvident and careless habits.— 
III health, and difficulties.—Death.—Obituary by 
Washington Allston. 

A BOUT 1805, Gilbert Stuart removed from Washington, 
and took up his residence in Boston where he lived 
the remainder of his life. Mr. Jonathan Mason of Boston,, 
who was personally acquainted with Stuart, writes thus : 

“ It was the privilege of the writer in early life to have 
formed the acquaintance and acquired the friendship j©f 
Gilbert Stuart, the distinguished artist, through the intro¬ 
duction of my father, a member of the United States Senate 
from Massachusetts in 1803, who had sat to him for his 
portrait in the City of Washington. 

“My father afterwards induced Stuart to remove to the 
eastward and make Boston his headquarters, promising him 
several of his family as sitters, and his influence with his 
connections and the public at large. The artist came to 
Boston and met with great success in his profession.” 

In Boston, Stuart was as improvident and careless in 
all matters relating to his own affairs as ever, and as in¬ 
different to the opportunities so frequently afforded him to 

(50) 


GILBERT STUART 


increase his gains and extend his reputation. The Penn¬ 
sylvania Academy of Fine Arts would gladly have commis¬ 
sioned him to paint a full-length portrait of Washington, but 
when applied to with an offer of fifteen hundred dollars for 
such a picture, he never even answered the letter, nor did he 
take any notice of a letter asking him to paint his own por¬ 
trait for the Academy at Florence. 

Stuart’s health began to fail in 1825 and 1826. This 
was followed by symptoms of paralysis in his left arm which 
depressed him greatly, and although his mind was clear and 
active to the last, he never recovered from the shock to his 
feelings when he found that his arm was becoming useless. 
“If I could live and have my^health,” he used to say, “I 
could paint better pictures than I have ever done.” Even 
at this time he had occasionally something amusing to say to 
a friend, but his natural flow of spirits was gone. 

Still he tried to paint, and with great effort succeeded 
in finishing a number of heads. The last picture he began 
and finished was a portrait of Mrs, Samuel Haywood of 
Boston. 

In the spring of 1828, the gout from which he had 
suffered severely at times, settled in his chest and stomach, 
and for three months he bore the torture with the greatest 
fortitude. At length nature gave way and on the 27th day 
of July, 1828, he died, having reached the age of seventy- 

two. 

(51) 


GILBERT STUART 


His wife and three daughters survived him. The re¬ 
mains of Gilbert Stuart were deposited in the old cemetery 
on Boston Common, and not in Newport R. I. as has some¬ 
times been stated. An old gentleman who was present at 
the funeral said he had a memorandum of the number of the 
vault; could it have been found and the spot identified, a 
friend would have had the remains removed to Rhode Island 
and placed in the family burial-lot. 

Eminently fitting does it seem that he who went 
from the humble life in the snuff-mill to achieve fame and 
honor in many foreign lands, should come back at last to his 
own country and should end his days and be buried so near 
the spot where he was born. 

Washington Allston, the artist, was asked to pronounce 
a eulogy on Stuart, but he was forced to decline, owing to 
failing health; he however, wrote the following obituary, 
which appeared in the columns of the Boston Daily Adver¬ 
tiser : 

“ Gilbert Stuart. 

“During the last week the remains of Gilbert Stuart 
Esq., were consigned to the tomb. He was born in the 
state of Rhode Island, in the year 1755. Soon after coming 
of age, he went to England, where he became the pupil of 
Mr. West, the late distinguished President of the Royal 
Academy. Stuart there, soon rose to eminence ; nor was 

(52) 


GILBERT STUART 


it a slight distinction that his claims were acknowledged, even 
during the life of Sir Joshua Reynolds. His high reputation 
as a portrait-painter, as well in Ireland as in England, hav¬ 
ing thus introduced him to a large acquaintance among 
the higher classes of society, both fortune and fame attended 
his progress, insomuch that, had he chosen to remain in 
England, they would doubtless have awarded him their 
highest gifts. But, admired and patronized as he was, he 
chose to return to his native country. He was impelled to 
this step, as he often declared, by a desire to give Americans 
a faithful portrait of Washington, and thus, in some measure, 
to associate his own with the name of the Father of his 
Country. And well is his ambition justified in the sublime 
head he has left us; a nobler personification of wisdom 
and goodness, reposing in the majesty of a serene counte¬ 
nance, is not to be found on canvas. He returned to 
America in 1792, and resided chiefly in Philadelphia and 
Washington, in the practice of his profession, till about 1805, 
when he removed to Boston, where he remained to the time 
of his death. During the last ten years of his life he had to 
struggle with many infirmities, yet such was the vigor of his 
mind that he seemed to triumph over the decay of nature, 
and to give to some of his last productions all the truth 
and splendor of his prime. 

“ Gilbert Stuart was not only one of the first painters of 
his time, but must have been admitted, by all who had an 

( 53 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


opportunity of knowing him, to have been, even out of his 
art, an extraordinary man: one who would have found dis¬ 
tinction easy in any other profession or walk of life. His 
mind was of a strong and original cast, his perceptions as 

clear as they were just, and in the power of illustration he 

% 

has rarely been equalled. On almost every subject, more 
especially on such as were connected with his art, his con¬ 
versation was marked by wisdom and knowledge; while the 
uncommon precision and eloquence of his language seemed 
ever to receive an additional grace from his manner, which 
was that of a well-bred gentleman. 

“The narration of anecdotes with which his knowl¬ 
edge of men and of the world had stored his memory, and 
which he often gave with great beauty and dramatic effect, 
were not unfrequently employed by Mr. Stuart in a way, 
and with an address peculiar to himself. From this store 
it was his custom to draw largely while occupied with his 
sitters—apparently for their amusement; but his object was 
rather, by thus banishing all restraint, to call forth, if possible, 
some involuntary traits of the natural character. But these 
glimpses of character, mixed as they are in all men, with so 
much that belongs with their age and association, would 
have been of little use to an ordinary observer; for the 
faculty of distinguishing between the accidental and the 
permanent, in other words, between the conventional ex¬ 
pression which arises from manners and the more subtle 

( 54 ) 



WASHINGTON, No. 11 





GILBERT STUART 


indication of the individual mind, is indeed no common one; 
and by no one with whom we are acquainted was this faculty 
possessed in so remarkable a degree. It was this which 
enabled him to animate his canvas,—not with the appearance 
of mere general life, but with that peculiar, distinctive life 
which separates the humblest individual from his kind. He 
seemed to dive into the thoughts of men, for they were 
made to rise and to speak on the surface. Were other 
evidence wanting, this talent alone were sufficient to estab¬ 
lish his claim as a man of genius, since it is the privilege of 
genius alone to measure at once the highest and the lowest. 
In his happiest efforts, no one ever surpassed him in em¬ 
bodying (if we may so speak) these transient apparitions of 
the soul. Of this not the least admirable instance is his 
portrait (painted within the last four years) of the late Presi¬ 
dent Adams, whose then bodily tenement seemed rather to 
present the image of some dilapidated castle than that ot 
the habitation of the unbroken mind; but not such the pic¬ 
ture ; called forth, as from its crumbling recesses, the living 
tenant is there,—still ennobling the ruin and upholding it, 
as it were, by the thought of his own life. In this vener¬ 
able ruin will the unbending patriot and the gifted artist 
speak to posterity of the first glorious century of our Re¬ 
public. 

“In a word, Gilbert Stuart was in the widest sense, a 
philosopher in his art; he thoroughly understood its princi- 

( 55 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


pies, as his works bear witness,—whether as to the harmony 
of colors, or of lines, or of light and shadow,—showing that 
exquisite sense of a whole which only a man of genius can 
realize and embody. 

“We cannot close this brief notice without passing 
record of his generous bearing towards his professional 
brethren. He never suffered the manliness of his nature 
to darken with the least shadow of jealousy; but when 
praise was due, he gave it freely, and gave it, too, with a 
grace which showed that, loving excellence for its own sake, 
he had a pleasure in praising. To the younger artists he 
was uniformly kind and indulgent, and most liberal of his 
advice, which no one ever properly asked but he received, 
and in a manner no less courteous than impressive. The 
unbroken kindness and friendship with which he honored 
the writer of this imperfect sketch will never be forgotten. 

“In the world of Art, Mr. Stuart has left a void that will 
not soon be filled. And well may his country say, ‘ A great 
man has passed from among us ’. But Gilbert Stuart has 
bequeathed her what is paramount to power,—since no 
power can command it,—the rich inheritance of his fame.” 


(56) 


/ 


CHAPTER VII 
The Art of Gilbert Stuart 


OINCE finishing the foregoing brief sketch of Gilbert 
^ Stuart’s life, with its many interesting objective details, 
it seemed to the author only fitting that one other chapter 
should be added to deal with the more subtle and intangible 
subject of his art. 

So much regarding it has been written by those who 
are more than adequately qualified to give expression to 
their views, that it may seem a presumption to attempt to 
write further on this subject which, always fascinating and 
elusive, will ever remain an essential element of any dis¬ 
cussion of the work of this great portrait painter. 

It is not the intention of the author to bring before the 
reader any startling, new viewpoint, but rather to give what 
might be termed his own composite picture formed by much 
that has already been said in the way of criticism and an¬ 
alysis, with perhaps a touch, here and there, of personal 
opinion which he trusts will be received in the spirit in 
which it is offered. 

What is it that makes a Stuart portrait such a living, 
breathing object today, and just why was there such appar- 

( 57 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


ent magic in his brush that the practice of his art reached 
a perfection of interpretation which has made his name 
immortal ? 

That Gilbert Stuart was a master in the art of portrait 
painting it wants no argument to prove; his works are the 
only evidence needed, and they establish it beyond appeal. 
His portraits of the famous men and beautiful women of 
the early days of this Republic when George Washington 
was president, his canvases portraying the features of his 
aristocratic sitters in England and Ireland, and most of all 
his unequalled representation of the visage of our first 
President, have each helped to place his name high up in the 
court of fame; they are redolent with a grace, a dignity, and 
a charm which we do not feel in the portraiture of today in 
which is so often expressed much of the nervous strain of 
modern life. 

It cannot be said that every head he painted holds 
equal interest for us—they probably did not for him—but 
even when possibly indifferent to his subject, Stuart’s 
method is so fine that it at once rivets the attention of the 
beholder to the canvas, and he is held there fascinated in 
spite of himself. 

It may fairly be said that Gilbert Stuart’s art is never 
dull, and that he never muddles his canvas which always 
declares with utter truth, the clear, direct result of his almost 
unnatural penetration. 


( 58 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


As the head was his chief, and perhaps only interest 
when executing a portrait, he never seemed to make any 
effort to diversify attitudes, while costumes seemed to be the 
merest accessories. Usually careless as to these details of 
his canvas, he sometimes, with the fewest possible strokes, 
painted lace so realistically, that when finished, it produced 
a result as completely perfect as the more labored lace paint¬ 
ing of the European portrait school. • He was fond of show¬ 
ing how easy it was to produce an effect when he understood 
what he was about, but if anyone of his intimate friends took 
him to task about his carelessness in painting a costume or 
a background, he would show impatience, and on one occa¬ 
sion replied: “ I copy the works of God, and leave clothes to 
tailors and mantua-makers/ 

These slight deficiencies might, perhaps, be called limi¬ 
tations, but within these limitations, if such they be, and as 
if oblivious to them, dominating the canvas, and always com¬ 
pelling the interest and admiration of the beholder, appears 
the portrait of the sitter, painted “as he lived”—a thing of 
flesh and blood—the product of Stuart’s genius, still so fresh 
and direct that it seems as if Time had revelled in stealing 
lightly by it, and in leaving it unspoiled for posterity. 

“There seem to be two distinct processes by which 
superior abilities manifest themselves, that of intelligence, 
and that of impulse. As great military achievements are 
realized equally through self-possession and daring, skill and 

( 59 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


bravery, foresight and enthusiasm, the calmness of a Wash¬ 
ington and the impetuosity of a Murat, literary and artistic 
results owe their efficiency to a like diversity of means. The 
basis of Washington Allston’s power was a love of beauty, 
that of Stuart acuteness; the one possessed delicate, the 
other strong perceptions ; one was inspired by ideality, and 
the other by sense. Hence Gilbert Stuart has been justly 
called a philosopher in his art. He seized upon the essen¬ 
tials, and scorned the adventitious. He was impressed by 
the conviction that as a portrait painter it was his business to 
deal frankly with nature, and not suffer her temporary rela¬ 
tions to interfere with his aim ; hence his well-known perti¬ 
nacity in seeking absolute expression, and giving bold gen¬ 
eral effects ; authentic hints rather than exquisitely wrought 
details.” He thoroughly distinguished between the acci¬ 
dental and the permanent mood of his sitter, no insignificant 
merit in portrait painting. 

It was Stuart’s ability to portray the individual that set 
him apart from many of his contemporaries. Each face 
looks out at one from the canvas and fain would speak. 
In his portraits, especially of men, one is struck first by 
the vigorous personality of the subjects, and the strength 
and virility of the painting, in which he shows so much of the 
individuality and humanity of his models, these being trans¬ 
lated to our consciousness by subtle shades of lovely color. 

They are supremely artistic, because with apparently slight 

(60) 


GILBERT STUART 


means, they convey so strong an impression of character and 
distinction. Himself a man of brilliant parts, Stuart had 
ceased to be dazzled by brilliance; could look at the indi¬ 
vidual example of manhood that he was studying in its own 
separate perspective, and could give a complete, instead of a 
fragmentary record of his subject. He once said of himself, 
“I work to express sentiment, grace, and character.” In 
Washington he certainly found all these and more, but with 
many of his sitters he was less fortunate and often refused 
a commission or gave up one partly executed, owing to what 
might be called a certain preciosity in his own feelings. The 
story is told of a Boston tradesman who brought his plain- 
featured wife to Stuart to be painted; the latter accepted the 
commission reluctantly, and when the portrait was finished 
it did not suit the husband who returned several times to 
see if the picture could not be made more pleasing. Stuart’s 
patience finally gave way and he exclaimed, “ What a 
damned business is this of a portrait painter! You bring 
him a potato, and expect he will paint you a peach” ! 

This was quite typical of Stuart’s disposition. Because 
of this rather whimsical discrimination as to his sitters, and 
excepting the few instances where the necessaries of life de¬ 
manded a quick product from his brush, Stuart may be said 
to have been something of an autocrat in his choice of sub¬ 
jects, and was therefore always at his best when his model 

pleased him, so that when we review the long list of his por- 

(61) 


GILBERT STUART 


traits we are impressed with their atmosphere of quality and 
aristocracy. The mere mention of his name enables one to 
visualize so many of the men and women of distinction who 
lived and made an impression upon the romantic period 
when this country was in its first youth, that in their 
presence one feels in a company quite raised above the 
level of ordinary daily life. 

Various factors have contributed to Gilbert Stuart’s 
supremacy as a portrait painter, but conspicuously among 
them should be mentioned the following: his complete con¬ 
fidence in the power of his great gift, his keen observation 
and reading of the characters of his sitters, and last but not 
least, his marvelous technique. 

Had the young artist been less confident in himself, and 
less original, the cold academic method of his master West 
might have clouded the brilliance of his work. Stuart al¬ 
ways spoke of him with gratitude and affection, but he be¬ 
came early conscious of his own native superiority in the 
treatment of heads, and understood only too well what it 
meant to be asked by his master, when he (West) was 
occupied in painting one of his “ ten-acre canvases/’ to take 
over a half-finished portrait, or even one scarcely begun, 
with a request that he complete it. 

It would be futile to try to prove that Stuart acquired 
his great gifts of penetration and technique from any of 

his preceptors; it is too obviously otherwise when we con- 

(62) 


GILBERT STUART 


sider who and what they were and how far removed their 
method was from that of their brilliant pupil, and for these 
reasons we may conclude that their influence never vitally 
affected his art. 

It would be reasonable to suppose that Stuart’s ac¬ 
quaintance with the “Old Masters” as he came into con¬ 
tact with them while in Great Britain, might have left some 
lasting powerful effect on his consciousness, but even when 
abroad he seems to have had no special desire to imitate 
them in any real sense, nor to have acquired any taste for 
allegorical conceptions, nor the handling of large or compli¬ 
cated compositions which might easily have tempted a less 
original mind. He was not a painter of great pictures, but 
of great portraits, which distinguished his ambition from that 
of so many contemporary artists. 

It must be conceded that Gilbert Stuart’s art was 
peculiarly his own when it was exemplified in the painting 
of the head, and especially with regard to his American 
portraits, but it must also be confessed that when he occa¬ 
sionally resorted to landscape backgrounds, his indifference 
was immediately felt, for his own atmosphere seemed to 
vanish, and to be replaced by one often so decidedly Eng¬ 
lish that the result was sometimes confused with the work 
of several of the greatest English artists of the day. 

In speaking of this phase of English influence upon 
Stuart, it may be said that he passed through two distinct 

(63) 


GILBERT STUART 


artistic periods. His work done in England shows some 
influence derived from his English contemporaries, and was 
occasionally mistaken for that of Raeburn, Romney and 
Gainsborough. His American work, however, almost the 
very first he did after returning to his native soil, proclaimed 
aloud the virility and robustness of his independence; the 
rich coloring so well marked in his fine portraits painted 
here, replaces the pearly grays so predominant in his pic¬ 
tures painted there. The delicate precision of his early 
brush gives way to the masterful freedom of his later one. 
Instead of capitulating to the art of his age which was full 
of affectation, Stuart soon became independent of it, and re¬ 
lying upon his own genius for intuition looked with sim¬ 
plicity, directly into the essence of things, untroubled by the 
mass of details which sometimes bewildered other painters 
of this period. 

In his portraits Stuart always illustrated a most valu¬ 
able principle, that of striving to interpret for himself, and 
to paint nature with his own eyes. Upon this judicious and 
liberal view, he habitually worked, his best portraits being 
therefore true glimpses of character. Even those heads 
which time had robbed of all intensity of expression he 
seems to have restored without any sacrifice of truth, as in 
the case of the elder Adams. 

It was this feeling for the original, this loyalty to indi¬ 
vidual conviction as the source of excellence, that led him to 

(64) 



WASHINGTON, No. 27 








GILBERT STUART 


prefer the unschooled criticism which his works received at 
home where, he said, they were compared with nature, of 
which they were direct copies, instead of being estimated as 
abroad, by their approach to Titian or Van Dyck. 

In a few words Gilbert Stuart was confident, fearless 
and courageous in his artistic conception, and these qualities 
helped very greatly to endow him with the power which he 
possessed as a portrait painter. 

We have now to touch upon another quality of Stuart’s 
genius, which was his reading and interpreting of the per¬ 
sonalities of his subjects. His gift in this direction was 
almost an uncanny one, and in order to increase it he culti¬ 
vated his powers of observation and memory, and studied 
human nature with as much zeal as art. He sought a com¬ 
mand of the original elements of expression, and endeavored, 
by exciting idiosyncrasies, to bring out the character, until 
eye, lip and air most eloquently betrayed the predominant 
spirit of the man ; this, when transferred to the canvas, alone 
realized his idea of a portrait. He endeavored to seek ex¬ 
pression in the intervals of self-consciousness, and considered 
no small part of the art of portraiture to consist in making 
his subject forget himself. 

It is mentioned that he even ventured to irritate Wash¬ 
ington during one of his sittings, in order to enliven his 
serene countenance by a glow of displeasure, which he seized 
with avidity. It has been said of him also that his talk 

(65) 


GILBERT STUART 


“drew the soul to the surface.” He was a proficient in 
knowledge of character, and this quality, aided by his unlim¬ 
ited and amusing fund of anecdotes, soon combined to make 
his sitter feel perfectly at home, and to exhibit his most cus¬ 
tomary appearance. Probably no other painter has left such 
a reputation for his ability to elicit expression by his social 
tact. More or less conversant with every topic of general 
interest, and endowed with rare conversational ability, he 
seldom failed to excite the dominant interest of his subject, 
and when the latter became self-oblivious or demonstrative, 
with the alertness and precision of a magician, the watchful 
painter transferred the coveted expression to his canvas. 

Although this was a customary experience with Stuart, 
when he came to paint Washington he found a much less 
flexible character upon which to scintillate his wit and open 
his battery of conversation. Great individuality seldom ac¬ 
companies facility of adaptation, and the President’s entire 
life had been oppressed with responsibility, so that at the 
time Stuart painted him, he possessed more self-control and 
reflection than humor and geniality, and light or casual con¬ 
versation made but a slight impression upon him. He did 
not excel in the art of conversation, and was more of a 
thinker and man of action than a talker, and we can imagine 
that Stuart had some difficulty in arresting the interest of the 
great man who “carried America in his brain.” By degrees, 

however, the desirable relations were established between 

( 66 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


himself and the artist, the result being the wonderful 
likenesses of Washington about which the pages of this 
book have woven their story. 

We now approach the third important factor of Gilbert 
Stuart’s art mentioned above, that of his technique which 
was exquisite, and as a rule, consistent. So sane was his 
manner, and so simple were his tints and vehicles, that time 
touches him with a lightness it keeps for few else. Seldom 
does one see a Stuart portrait degraded in tone except, per¬ 
haps, through accident, and the brilliancy and preservation 
of his works today attest the soundness of his method and 
practice. For the purity of their color and the freshness and 
transparency of their flesh tints Stuart’s “heads” will always 
be remarkable. He never spoiled them by over-elaboration 
for he knew when to leave them; this valuable quality of 
reservation was characteristic of his work, even when he was 
tempted to do otherwise which might have happened in the 
case of a subject which especially appealed to him. “Let 
nature tell in every part of your painting,” was one of his 
counsels to young artists; “be ever jealous about truth in 
painting.” 

Jane Stuart says of her father that his success was due 
in a great measure to his extraordinary perceptive faculties, 
and that his insight into the colors of the complexion was 
as great as his reading of the character of his sitter. He 
commenced a portrait by drawing the head and features ; 

(67) 


GILBERT STUART 


after that he sketched in the general tone of the complexion; 
for this he seldom required more than four or five sittings, 
and frequently it was done in three. The picture was never 
touched except when the model was in the chair. At the 
second sitting he introduced transparent flesh-tints, at the 
third he began to awaken it into life and give it expression, 
and then the individuality of the sitter came out. This was 
always done quickly. Miss Stuart thought that her father 
considered it impossible for one to be an artist without 
acquiring a thorough knowledge of drawing and anatomy, 
and it is certain that he himself gave a great deal of time to 
these studies in earlier years. 

The heads in his portraits were generally placed in the 
centre of his canvases, but rather nearer the top than many 
of his contemporaries set them, and no special artifice seems 
to have been used to throw them into prominence; they 
dominate the picture because of their individual excellence. 

As a colorist Stuart stands very high; the flesh-tones 
brilliant and transparent in the lights, are mellow and still 
flesh-like in the shadows, and his balance of light and shade 
is excellent; avoiding dangerous extremes he practiced what 
he taught in his advice to pupils, “ Where there is too much 
light there will be no flesh in the shadows ; where too little,, 
not enough flesh in the lights.” 

It has been said by some critics that his coloring was 

too strong; that there was too great a preponderance of 

( 68 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


carnation in his flesh-tints; to this I cannot subscribe. 
Stuart did not rely on or require strong colors to produce 
his effects, for he had the faculty of bringing out his heads 
simply by the use of middle tints and tones, giving all the 
required rotundity and relief without the assistance of black 
shadows and heavy backgrounds, and yet the faces so 
painted are full of character and expression. There seems 
to be no appearance of labor in his execution, but everything 
he did showed force and energy. 

It may be in place to mention here a physical infirmity 
which Stuart bore through almost all of his life. This was 
a great unsteadiness of hand which at times was so apparent 
that it almost precluded the possibility of his use of the 
brush. It is related that when he was painting the portrait 
of Josiah Quincy, a friend visiting his studio said “Stuart 
stood with his wrist upon his rest, his hand vibrating, and 
when it became fairly steady, with a sudden dash of the 
brush, he put the colors on the canvas.” His paint was 
always put on in short, decided touches, and his character¬ 
istic sureness of touch was the more remarkable on account 
of his physical drawback. This is not altogether inexplicable 
however, for the very weakness may have been converted 
into a source of strength and distinction. The infirmity of 
the painting-hand rendered utterly impossible such pains¬ 
taking elaboration of details as was so often seen in other 
paintings of that time. Stuart’s colors had to be put on the 

(69) 


GILBERT STUART 


canvas with a sudden dash of the brush during a moment, 
perhaps an instant, of tolerable steadiness. But precisely by 
those short decided touches, those sudden dashes of the 
brush, he perhaps secured the best results; because his hand 
could not linger over the task, he formed the habit of record¬ 
ing with it only the most vital observations, which those un¬ 
failing eyes of his made with such certitude. Moreover he 
had to record those observations with literally instantaneous 
decision, shortly—once for all—and the impression of his 
confidence is still, after all these years, directly communi¬ 
cated to the observer. 

In speaking of the sureness of his eye, it will not be out 
of place to quote the familiar remark of Benjamin West to 
his pupils: “It is of no use to steal Stuart’s colors; if you 
want to paint as he does you must steal his eyes.” Many 
artists have been puzzled in their efforts to produce a result 
like that of Stuart’s, and have imagined that he had some 
secret connected with the management of his colors, but this 
certainly was not the case. 

Stuart’s palette was as follows: antwerp blue, white, 
yellow, ochre, vermilion lake, burnt umber, ivory black, lake 
and vermilion for the blood; white and black for gray; yellow 
and black for green ; black, vermilion, burnt umber and lake 
for the shadow; the last three were used as glazing colors. 
“Never be saving of color. Load your brush, but keep your 
tints as separate as you can. No blending; it is destructive 

(70) 


GILBERT STUART 


to clear and beautiful effects. It takes off transparency and 
brightness of color, and renders flesh of the consistency ol 
buckskin. Flesh is like no other substance under heaven. 
It has all the gayety of a silk-mercer’s shop without its gaudi¬ 
ness of gloss, and all the softness of old mahogany without 
its sadness.” 

He illustrated his penchant for flesh tints while once 
criticising a portrait by Trumbull who asked him what he 
thought of the coloring, “Pretty well, pretty well,” replied 
Stuart, “but more like our master’s (West’s) flesh than 
nature’s. When Benney teaches the boys, he says, ‘yellow 
and white there,’ and he makes a streak; ‘red and white 
there,’ another streak; ‘ brown and red there for a warm 
shadow,’ another streak; ‘red and yellow there,’ another 
streak.” 

Here Stuart laid a shawl over a chair and pointed to its 
colors and then to his own hand. 

“But nature does not color in streaks,” he continued 
impressively. “Look at my hand; see how the colors are 
mottled and mingled; yet all is clear as silver,” 

It is not strange, therefore, that we find Stuart’s peculiar 
fame resting upon his flesh coloring; it is the feature in which 
he excelled; in tonal quality, color and effect in painting flesh 

he has never been surpassed. 

In closing this chapter on Gilbert Stuart’s art, the author 
feels that even in the space given to it, he has but very casu¬ 
al ) 


GILBERT STUART 


ally covered the ground. The only way by which one can 
really hope to be familiar with a “Stuart” is to become 
acquainted with it through personal contact and experience. 
All that has been said or written by critics may be valuable 
foundations or stepping-stones to later knowledge; but let it 
always be remembered that to the intellectual understanding 
of a Stuart portrait must be added that subjective insight 
which only comes from intimate friendship with a painting. 
To truly appreciate, one must not only know, one must feel 
a “Stuart”! 


u 


(72) 





WASH INGTO N 


NO 


1 9 















CHAPTER VIII 


Stuart’s portraits of Washington.—The bust showing 

THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FACE.-THE FULL-LENGTH POR¬ 

TRAITS.—The Athenaeum portraits. 

1 AM still here, my countrymen, to do you what good 
I can.” 

The above quotation seems to the author peculiarly 
appropriate to place at the head of a chapter on Gilbert 
Stuart’s portraits of George Washington. In a special sense 
they may be considered as belonging to the nation, as their 
history does to the American people. 

To trace the records of these portraits by Stuart 
would prove of curious interest, each one having a his¬ 
tory linking together many memories of the past with the 
family legends of today, and those who are fortunate enough 
to own such a treasure look upon it as a most cherished 
possession. Earlier in this book mention has been made 
of the fortuitous circumstances which brought Washington 
and Stuart together into a relation, the result of which means 
so much to every American today, whether he be simply a 
patriotic citizen, or more especially a lover of art for art’s 
sake, or perhaps both. 


( 73 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


In Owen Wister’s altogether delightful “The Seven 
Ages of Washington,”* is given a picture of our first Presi¬ 
dent which it gives me great pleasure to quote in part: he 
speaks of his unequaled “patience of mind” which enables 
him “to take difficult thoughts, one by one, and march 
slowly to their end, and so to reach conclusions which were 
impregnable then, and which time itself has left unassailed, 
this was his preeminent quality;” a little further on—“One 
other great quality comes forth from all Washington’s deeds 
and words like a beautiful glow; its lustre seems to shine 
in every page that he writes, and in all his dealings with 
men, with ideas, with himself; it is the quality of simplicity, 
* * * * he moved always in simplicity, that balanced and 
wholesome ease of the spirit, which when it comes among 
those who must be showing off from moment to moment, 
shines like a quiet star upon fireworks.” 

A little later in speaking of Washington during the 
period in which Stuart painted him he says: “ And how did 
the man who had been twice president look ? The descrip¬ 
tions of him belonging to this period tell of changes. Less 
mention is made of his agreeable smile, his cheerful serenity, 
his pleasant talk; it is his gravity, his reticence, even his 
melancholy, this is the record.” 

* The Seven Ages of Washington. A Biography. By Owen Wister. 
Macmillan & Co., New York, 1907. 

( 74 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


These dominant characteristics which Mr. Wister so 
feelingly mentions,—patience of mind—simplicity, and grav¬ 
ity—even his melancholy—together with his confidence and 
dignity Gilbert Stuart has truthfully portrayed on his can¬ 
vases, and it is difficult to imagine what an inadequate 
picture might have come down to us had it not been for 
these faithful likenesses of Washington, painted in later life 
to be sure, when the fire of youth had long since departed, 
but which the artist with his incomparable gift of being able 
to see in the face and form of his sitter the composite per¬ 
sonality formed by both youth and age, has made speaking 
images of this most illustrious of all his models. 

Previous mention has been made of Gilbert Stuart’s 
avowed purpose in returning to America from Ireland, which 
was to paint a portrait of President Washington. It would 
probably be erroneous to say that any one single motive was 
behind his great desire to portray the features of Washing¬ 
ton, for being very human, Stuart probably had several 
reasons in his mind when he left the other side. 

Herbert, in his “Irish Varieties,” quotes Stuart as say¬ 
ing, when speaking of his contemplated return to his native 
land, “There I expect to make a fortune by Washington 
alone,” indicating £hat he thought the painting of the Presi¬ 
dent’s portrait might prove an excellent business proposition. 

Other biographers of Stuart, however, have made more 
of a zealous strain of patriotism which they think underlay 

( 75 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


his wish in this important undertaking; there can be no 
doubt about his ardent admiration for Washington and of his 
ambition to give to the world a satisfactory portrait of the 
great soldier and statesman. 

The decision in this matter is really not of paramount 
importance, although it is an interesting conjecture, and it 
may fairly be said that more than likely there were mingled 
feelings in Stuart’s mind at the time he was so fired with 
enthusiasm to return home and receive permission to paint 
the President. 

Whatever the real causes were, Americans should con¬ 
gratulate themselves that he came home when he did, appar¬ 
ently at the psychological moment, for he was at that time in 
the fulness of his powers, and the pictures that he painted 
between the date of his arrival in New York in 1792 and his 
removal to Boston in 1805 are the finest productions of his 
brush made on this side of the Atlantic. 

It is a matter of satisfaction to the student of Stuart’s 
work to be able to establish quite definitely the date of his 
arrival in Philadelphia, through the previously-mentioned 
letter to Mrs. John Jay, which indicates that he probably 
reached there in November of 1794. 

He lived in Philadelphia in all, about ten years, and 
these were prolific in the execution not only of portraits of 
Washington but of the other great personages who ^illu¬ 
mined with their presence that age of American history. 

(76) 


GILBERT STUART 


He seemed to be the right man in the right place; he and 
his work fitted each other, and he appears to have had the 
pleasing gift of being able in these portraits to link the past 
with the present; even today “when the owner of a Stuart 
family portrait looks up with affectionate reverence to the 
living face upon the wall, pleased to see in the children 
of the present their features taking on unexpected likenesses 
betraying their parentage, he arrives at the conclusion that 
there was a magic in Stuart’s brush, confusing the living 
with the dead, and clasping in one bond the dear ties of 
blood.” 

But to return to the specific purpose of this chapter, it 
is interesting to note what Miss Stuart has said about her 
father’s comments on the personal appearance of Washing¬ 
ton when he was painting him. She says: “I have often 
heard my father, in conversation with Washington Allston, 
give his opinion of General Washington’s personal appear¬ 
ance. He said his figure was by no means good; that his 
shoulders were high and narrow, and his hands and feet 
were remarkably large. He had “aldermanic proportions,” 
and this defect was increased by the form of the vest of that 
day. But with all these drawbacks, his appearance was 
singularly fine. I have heard my mother say that the first 
time she saw him, he entered the hall-door as she passed 
from the entry to the parlor, and that she thought him the 
most superb-looking person she had ever seen. He was 

( 77 ) 



GILBERT STUART 


then dressed in black velvet, with white lace ruffles, etc., 
exactly as Stuart’s full-length picture represented him.” 

It is worthy of note that Stuart, when asked for his 
candid opinion of the various busts and portraits of Wash¬ 
ington replied, “ Houdon’s bust comes first, and my head 
of him next. When I painted him he had just had a set of 
false teeth inserted, which accounts for the constrained ex¬ 
pression so noticeable about the mouth and lower part of the 
face. Houdon’s bust does not suffer from this defect. I 
wanted him as he looked at that time.” 

In this connection G. W. P. Custis, in his “Recollec¬ 
tions,” says: “In 1789 the President lost his teeth, and 
the artificial ones with which he was furnished answering 
very imperfectly the purpose for which they were intended, 
a marked change occurred in the appearance of his face, 
more especially in the projection of the under lip, which 
forms so distinguishing a feature in the works of Stnart, and 
others who painted portraits of the great man subsequently 
to 1789.” 

The following letter from Washington to his dentist was 
written only a year before his death, and after the portraits 
now known to us were painted; but the “old bars” to which 
he refers were probably the ones that he wore when he sat 
to Stuart. 


(78) 



WASHINGTON, No. 22 












GILBERT STUART 


“Philadelphia, 12th Oct., 1798. 

‘Sir: Your letter of the 8th came safe, and 
as I am hurrying in order to leave this 
city tomorrow, I must be short. 

“The principal thing you will have to 
attend to, in the alteration you are about 
to make, is to let the upper bar fall back 
from the lower one, thus (Washington 
enclosed three explanatory drawings). 
Whether the teeth are quite straight or 
inclined in a little thus (cut 2) or a little 
rounding outwards, thus (cut 3) is imma¬ 
terial, for I find that it is the bars alone— 
both above and below, that give the lips 
the pouting and swelling appearance—of 
consequence; if this can be remedied all 
will be well. 

‘I send you the old bars, which you re¬ 
turned to me, with the new set, because 
you have desired; but they may be de¬ 
stroyed, or anything else done with them 
you please, for you will find that I have 
been obliged to file them away so much 
above, to remedy this evil I have been 
complaining of, as to render them useless, 
perhaps to receive new teeth. But of this 

( 79 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


you are better able to judge than I am. 

If you can fix the teeth (now on the new 
bars which you have) on the old bars, 
which you will receive with this letter, I 
should prefer it, because the latter are 
easy in my mouth; and you will perceive, 
moreover, that when the edges of the 
upper and lower teeth are put together, 
that the upper falls back into the mouth, 
which they ought to do, or it will have the 

effect of forcing the lips out just under the 
nose. 

“I shall only repeat again that I feel 
much obliged by your extreme willingness 
and readiness to accommodate me, and 
that I am sir, your obedient servant 

George Washington.” 

“Mr. John Greenwood.” 

It will thus be seen from the above, that the “pouting 
and swelling” of the face resulted from the badly-fitting 
teeth, and not from any trick on the part of the artist to give 
something like a natural look to the lower part of the face, 
by stuffing cotton between the jaw and the lip, or any other 
artifice. 


(So) 


GILBERT STUART 


It seems fitting here to quote another extract from Miss 
Jane Stuart’s narrative: 

“ Many years after the death of Stuart, Mr. Rembrant 
Peale gave a lecture on the Washington portrait in which he 
made an attack on the style of dress in which Stuart had 
represented Washington, and denied that he had ever worn 
lace on his bosom or wrists. The next day my sister Anne 
wrote him a note to say we had in our possession some lace 
which my father cut from Washington’s linen. The circum¬ 
stances were these : my father asked Mrs. Washington if she 
could let him have a piece of lace, such as the General wore, 
to paint from. She said, ‘ Certainly,’ and did it make any 
difference if it were old. He replied, ‘ Certainly not, I only 
wish to give the general effect.’ She then brought the linen 
with the lace on it, and said, ‘ Keep it, it may be of use for 
other pictures.’ 

“ Mr. Peale answered my sister’s note very politely, and 
said he had never seen Washington in lace ruffles. I have 
given away this lace an inch at a time, until it has all disap¬ 
peared ; the largest piece I gave to the late Mrs. Harrison 
Gray Otis, who had it framed.” 

Notwithstanding these so-called defects in Washington’s 
personal appearance not unnoticed by the trained eye of the 
alert artist, the latter with his marvelous power of penetrat¬ 
ing into the inner consciousness of his subject, gives to the 

beholder a result in his likenesses of the first President, so 

(81) 


GILBERT STUART 


convincing as to spiritual quality, that the deficiencies of the 
face and figure vanish into the consummate realization ot 
manly greatness. 

Washington, according to Stuart was not at first a 
patient sitter, but as he himself says later on, he became so 
accustomed to posing for artists that he could readily assume 
and retain any desired pose. The preeminent success of 
Gilbert Stuart in achieving this and the feeling that he alone 
had represented the hero truly on canvas was a mortification 
to those painters who had preceded him. 

One of the most unequivocal testimonies to the truth of 
Stuart’s portraits of Washington is, that when John Vander- 
lyn was employed by Congress to paint a full-length of the 
first President for the nation, it was stipulated that he should 
copy the countenance from Stuart’s original painting of the 
“Athenaeum Head.” 

■* 

And now before going on to the more detailed discus¬ 
sion of the separate Washington portraits, it may be enlight¬ 
ening to say just a word as to the favorite backgrounds used 
by Stuart when painting these pictures. He preferred paint¬ 
ing on a coarse-twilled canvas or a panel of fine mahogany. 
These wood-panels were especially prepared, being planed 
diagonally across the surface with a toothing-plane; this gave 
a rough face not unlike the canvas he usually chose. 

The panel was then primed with a mixture of black and 

white, giving a light gray shade. Stuart considered “ fog- 

(82) 


GILBERT STUART 


color” preferable to any other as a ground, and it is this 
gray-brown we see particularly in the unfinished background 
of the “Athenaeum Head.” 

By way of briefly recalling to the mind of the student ot 
“ Stuart-Washingtons ” several of the indispensable facts con¬ 
nected with them, it seems well to mention again that there 
were three types of portraits painted by the artist from life. 

The first of these, and beyond all question the most 
satisfactory of Stuart’s portraits of Washington, was painted 
as we have stated before in Philadelphia in 1795. It pre¬ 
sents the right side of the face. Soon after it was painted 
it was taken to England and became the property of Samuel 
Vaughan, from which circumstance it is known as the 
“ Vaughan-Washington ” ; it now belongs to Mr. Thomas 
B. Clarke of New York, who acquired it at a sale of paint¬ 
ings of the late Mrs. Joseph Harrison of Philadelphia. 

The second type was painted in 1796 and is the full- 
length portrait of Washington standing with extended arm 
as if in the act of speaking. This picture is known as the 
“Lansdowne” ; the original, signed and dated, belongs to the 
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Penna. 

The third and last type of portrait of Washington 
painted by Stuart in 1796 from life is the famous “Athe¬ 
naeum Head.” This picture was purchased from the artist’s 
widow by a number of gentlemen who presented it to the 

Boston Athenaeum Society, hence its name. The portrait 

(83) 


GILBERT STUART 


is now deposited for safe-keeping in the Boston Museum of 
Fine Arts. 

The following much-copied list, found among Stuart’s 
papers, a fragment in the artist’s own handwriting, while 
enlightening, does not prove conclusively the ownership of 
these pictures as there is no record showing that all of these 
portraits were executed. 


“A list of Gentlemen who are to have copies of the por¬ 
trait of the President of the United States. •' 

Philadelphia, April 20th, 1795. 


J. Watson, Esq. 1 

Don Jos. de Jaudennes . 5 

Marquis of Lansdowne . 1 

Lord Viscount Cremorne 1 
B. West, Esq., P. R. A. 1 
Messrs. Pollock, N. Y. 100 2 
J. Vaughan, Esq. 200 . 2 

Col. Burr, N. Y. 100 . 1 

-Mead, Esq. . . . 1 

M. T. Barrow, N. . 1 

John Craig, Esq. 100 . 1 

John Stoughton 1 , Esq. . 1 

Kearny Whartofi . . . 1 

Casaubon, Esq., 153 M. J. 1 
Meredith, Esq. 1 

Blodget, Esq. 


Greenleaf, Esq. 1 

Wm. Hamilton, Esq. . 1 

Mr. Chief Justice Jay. . 1 

Col. Read.1 

Mr. Holmes. 100 . . . 1 

Mr. Fitzsimons. 100 . . 1 

Mr. Necklin.1 

Gen. Lee.1 

Mr. Crammond ... 2 

J. Swan, Esq.1 

-Smith, Esq., S. C. . 1 

- Crammond, Esq. . 1 

Doctor Stevens . . . 1 


-Scott, Esq., Lancaster 1 

Grant, Esq., Susqueha’a 1 
Wm. Ludwell Lee, Green¬ 
spring, Va.” .... 1 


(84) 








GILBERT STUART 


Portrait Showing Right Side of Face 

It is believed that in September of the year 1795 at his 
first studio in Philadelphia in the home of the son of his 
friend Dr. William Smith, Provost of the University of Penn¬ 
sylvania, situated at the southeast corner of Fifth and 
Chestnut Streets, Stuart painted his first portrait of Wash¬ 
ington from life. A bronze tablet has recently been placed 
on the building to bear witness to this spot. 

This earliest type of the portraits of Washington is con¬ 
sidered by artists and historians as the greatest and most 
convincing example of Stuart’s work. It differs entirely 
from his later portraits in that it represents Washington 
as a younger looking man, less grave, and with a somewhat 
more pleasing expression. Although all of Stuart’s portraits 
of Washington were painted within a relatively short time, 
still an examination of them will show the President as a 
much older man in the latter pictures than the elapsed time 
would suggest. This is accounted for by the fact that 
Washington was said to have aged in a most marked de¬ 
gree towards the last years of his administration; trouble 
and worry settled like a heavy burden on the shoulders that 
had before carried the strain without effort, and the grave 
and worn expression of his face became his more customary 
one. Instead of idealizing Washington in his portraits, 
Stuart’s desire seemed to be to paint him as he actually 
appeared at the time he sat to him, and he has been quoted 

(85) 


1 


GILBERT STUART 


as saying “I do not pretend to have painted Washington as 
the General of the Armies of Independence; I know him not 
as such. I have painted the President of the United States.” 

Rembrandt Peale when speaking in his lecture of the 
portraits of Washington, says of these early examples by 
Stuart that show the right side of the face, “In the lower 
part of the face they have the advantage over the other por¬ 
traits that he afterwards painted.” To quote from a letter 
of the same artist dated “Philadelphia, March 16th, 1846, to 
C. E. Lester, Esq.” . . . “Stuart’s first portrait was 

painted same time as mine, Washington giving Stuart his 
first sitting between my first and second.” Again in his 
letter addressed to Mr. Joseph Harrison, dated February 
16th, 1859, “It is the first original portrait, painted by Stuart 
in 1795, at the same time that Washington sat to me.” 

Asher B. Durand, the artist, and also America’s master 
engraver in line, on being shown a photograph for the first 
time of this early type of Stuart’s portrait of Washington, 
said: “That is a likeness. It is much superior in character 
to the ‘Athenaeum Head’ portrait and should be considered 
the standard; both the artist and subject would gain by it.” 
He also went on to say he wished he could have known of it 
earlier in life, evidently meaning that he would have en¬ 
graved from it instead of the “Athenaeum” portrait which 
he did in 1833 for the “Writings of Washington.” 

It is said that Stuart becoming dissatisfied with his first 

( 86 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


portrait, sold it to Winstanley for two hundred dollars, who 
took it abroad with him and sold it to Samuel Vaughan who 
in turn sold it to joseph Harrison of Philadelphia. The 
picture was engraved by Thomas Plalloway, the English 
engraver; the plate appeared in “Lavater’s Physiognomy”, 
and is inscribed “George Washington / Engraved by T. 
Halloway from a Picture painted by Mr. Stuart in 1795. / 
In the possession of Samuel Vaughan Esq. / Published as 
the act directs by T. Halloway and the other proprietors, 
Novr. 2nd, 1796.” It was also engraved four years later in 
London by William Ridley, the plate being inscribed as 
engraved from “ An Original picture in the possession of 
Sami. Vaughan Esq.” 

It has been no light task at this time, over a hundred 
years since the painting of these portraits, to record accur¬ 
ately the history and different ownerships of the pictures as 
they have come down to us at the present time. The four¬ 
teen canvases, showing the right-side of the face, listed here¬ 
after, are generally undisputed, but connoisseurs and col¬ 
lectors of the work of Stuart differ in their opinions in 
respect to many details concerning them. Some of these 
pictures have suffered by restoration, and in others the 
ravages of time and abuse have caused defects which have 
been retouched by different artists, so that it is not surpris¬ 
ing to find that opinions vary as to several of them. 

The portrait numbered 15 on the following list and 

(87) 


GILBERT STUART 


known as the “Cochran” will be mentioned more in detail 
here, as it is really rather closely related to the pictures 
showing the right side of the face, inasmuch as its general 
composition suggests them though the face is turned to¬ 
wards the left as in the “Athenaeum Head.” This portrait 
has frequently been referred to as the “ Unique Type.” 
Certain it is that we know of no replica or copy made from 
this picture by Stuart or that follows this composition. It 
has been suggested that after painting the first group of 
portraits showing the right side of the face, he experimented 
on his earlier efforts and painted the head to the left, but 
retained much of the composition of the earlier group of 
portraits. Be that as it may, the result must have been 
unsatisfactory to Stuart, as he never repeated it. 

This picture is also of interest as having been the storm- 
centre or “bone of contention” in a rather amusing con¬ 
troversy, as to the conflicting attributions with regard to it 
and another painting on its first exhibition in New York. 
The story might be better told by others, but as I under¬ 
stood it the Cochran portrait had turned up in Lancaster, 
Penna., and the late Charles Henry Hart had been instru¬ 
mental in Mr. Cochran’s acquiring it. He also passed 
on with the picture by an unfortunate mistake, a pedigree 
that rightfully belonged to another picture, also from Lan¬ 
caster (the Alexander Scott, Stuart-Washington) then in 

the possession of Mr. Charles A. Munn. This confusion 

( 88 ) 



WASHINGTON, No. 15 








GILBERT STUART 


was finally straightened out, see the article in the New York 
Sun, for January 21st, 1917, “Tracing the Pedigrees of Two 
Stuart-Washington Portraits,” by Chas. Henry Hart. Also 
see “Some Old-time Lancaster Portraits of Washington,” 
by Judge C. I. Landis. Published by Lancaster County 
Plistorical Society, Feb. 2nd, 1917. 

Gilbert Stuart’s Full-length Portraits of 

Washington. 

The artist painted his second type of portrait of Wash¬ 
ington from life on the order of Mr. and Mrs. William Bing¬ 
ham of Philadelphia. The history of the painting of this full- 
length standing portrait of our President should surely open 
with a copy of the following letter. It was indorsed in 
Washington’s handwriting. 

“Mr. Stuart, Chestnut Street. 

Sir: I am under promise to Mrs. Bingham 
to sit to you tomorrow, at nine o’clock, 
and wishing to know if it be convenient 

o 

to you that I should do so, and whether 
it shall be at your house (as she talked of 
the State House). I send this note to 
ask information. 

I am sir, your obedient servant, 

Geo. Washington. 

Monday Evening, nth April, 1796.” 

(89) 


GILBERT STUART 


William Bingham was a man of wealth and considera¬ 
tion, who posed as a patron of the fine arts. In 1780 he 
had married the beautiful Ann Willing, one of the belles of 
Philadelphia, and in 1795 he was Senator in Congress from 
Pennsylvania. During the intervening years he had lived 
much abroad both in an official and private station. It was 
at this time Stuart painted his picture of the Bingham family 
(or rather began it, for it was never finished). It was in 
England that William Bingham formed the friendship of 
America’s staunch friend the Earl of Shelburne, afterwards 
first Marquis of Lansdowne. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that Mr. Bingham should have ordered Gilbert Stuart to paint 
at least three portraits of Washington: a full bust for his city 
mansion in Philadelphia, and two full-length standing portraits, 
the first for his country-house, built on the west bank of the 
Schuykill River, at “Lansdowne,” (now a part of Fairmount 
Park) and a replica for his friend Lord Lansdowne, for whom 
he had named his country-seat. In Mason’s Life of Stuart 
we are told that the Marquis of Lansdowne gave Stuart the 
commission for the painting of the first full-length portrait, 
and when it was known that Stuart was to paint such a 
picture for the Marquis, Mr. and Mrs. Bingham expressed a 
strong desire to the artist to be permitted “to be at the 
charge of it.” Stuart, it is said, at first hesitated, but finally 
yielded to their wishes to be allowed to send it as a present 

from them to their friend the Marquis. 

(90) 


GILBERT STUART 


This was in April, 1796, as shown by the note from 
Washington to Stuart. The portrait made for Mr. Bing¬ 
ham’s house is signed and dated, and from what we know 
of its history should be considered the original, while the 

V - ' 

picture painted for Lord Lansdowne which is unsigned and 
undated is now generally thought to be the replica, though 
they must both have been painted about the same time. 
The picture shows Washington standing, full-length, head 
to left, with the right arm extended as in the act of speak¬ 
ing. He holds a dress-sword in his left hand. To left 
is a table partly covered with a cloth or drapery upon which 
is an inkstand, a document, and books. Beneath the table 
are several lettered volumes; a rug covers the floor and 
in the background are two rows of columns with a cur¬ 
tain partly drawn up and with the curtain cords and tassels 
showing against the columns. An arm-chair stands back of 
the figure to the right. The Bingham picture (in the Gallery 
of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) is signed 
“G. Stuart 1796.” Dunlap says that when he asked Stuart 
why he did not put his name or initial upon his pictures to 
mark them, he replied, “I mark them all over,” which to a 
great extent is true, if somewhat conceited. 

This figure of Washington has frequently been criticised, 
and George Washington Parke Custis thus speaks of it: 
“The defect in the full-length is in the limbs.” It was a well- 
known fact that the man who stood for the figure was a 

(91) 


GILBERT STUART 


much smaller man than Washington. It has been said that 
this man was named Smith, and that Stuart boarded in his 
house. From another source we have a different version ; 
Mr. John A. McAllister writes from Philadelphia that “Aider- 
man Kepple stood for the figure. I had this from his 
daughter who died a few years ago.” This is more probable 
than the statement about the boarding-house keeper Smith, 
for Stuart at that time “lived in his own hired house.” It 
has also been said that the Count Louis Marie de Noailles, a 
French nobleman, brother-in-law of the Marquis de Lafayette, 
stood for the figure, and we do know that he presented 
Stuart with a superb silver-mounted rapier, saying it might 
be useful if he wanted to introduce a dress-sword in painting 
other portraits of Washington. Stuart valued it very highly, 
but years after, when the family treasury was low, Mrs. Stuart 
who never liked to see the sword in the house, had the 
silver mountings converted into- teaspoons. 

The full-length Lansdowne portrait of Washington was 

engraved in England by James Heath, in a manner and 

under circumstances that were very disagreeable to Stuart, 

who could not control his temper when he learned how he 

had been defrauded of what was clearly his right. An 

account of the transaction has been given by Mr. John 

* § 

Neagle who was well acquainted with Stuart, and who 
painted his portrait: 

“ When the picture arrived in England it attracted 

1(92) 


GILBERT STUART 


general attention, and Mr. Heath the engraver was not 
slow to perceive the advantage that might accrue to himself 
by publishing a print of it, which he did with the consent 
of the Marquis who observed at the time that Mr. Stuart 
would be highly gratified by having his work .copied by 
an artist of such distinguished ability. Accordingly the 
engraving was announced in London with the usual puffs, 
stating that “the picture in the possession of the Marquis 
of Lansdowne is the production of that very excellent por¬ 
trait-painter, Gabriel Stuart, a native of America, and an 
eleve of Benjamin West Esq. His pencil has a freedom 
that is unaffected ; his coloring is clear without glare, and 
chaste without monotony; his style of composition is ani¬ 
mated yet simple, and he has the happy faculty of embody¬ 
ing the mind as strongly as he identifies the person.” 

To the above was added the announcement that Mr. 
Heath was historical engraver to the King, and was one 
of the six associate engravers to the Royal Academy. 

Washington died December 14th, 1799, and Heath’s 
engraving was ready for the market by February 1st, 1800. 
Never was there a better opportunity for a publisher to real¬ 
ize large returns from an engraver’s burin, 

Neagle’s narrative goes on to say: “Mr. Bingham had 
not made it a condition with the Marquis that a copyright 
should be secured for the benefit of the painter; indeed 
he never mentioned Mr. Stuart’s wish on the subject intend- 

( 93 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


ing by the next vessel to beg this provision for the painter’s 
benefit, as an after-thought, which would not appear to lessen 
the value of the present. But this proved too late for poor 
Stuart. When the vessel arrived, Heath had made his copy 
under the sanction of the owner, and the design was already 
on the copper. The matter was never broached to Stuart, 
and the first he knew of the engravings was seeing them 
offered for sale in Mr. Dobson’s book-store in Second street 
Philadelphia. This was the first intimation he had of the 
unwelcome fact that his prospect of advantage from a copy¬ 
right was annihilated, and the fruits of^ his labor snatched 
from him by one who had no share in his enterprise, or 
claim whatever upon that which he had invented and ex¬ 
ecuted. 

The whole affair was a most unfortunate one. Mr. 
Bingham was evidently unacquainted with the rights of 
authors, or he certainly would not have neglected to stipu¬ 
late for the copyright at the proper moment. Stuart called 
upon him for redress: the interview ended in a quarrel. 
With one of Stuart’s temperament, and smarting under the 
loss he had sustained, it is hardly possible that such a meet¬ 
ing could have ended otherwise. Among Stuart’s scanty 
papers was found the draft of a letter addressed to Lord 
Lansdowne which reads as follows : 

“My Lord:—The liberality with which you have uni¬ 
formly patronized the Arts, and a grateful recollection of 

( 94 ) 



WASHINGTON, No. 16 









GILBERT STUART 


rriy personal obligation for your approbation and counte¬ 
nance, have inspired a hope that your Lordship will receive 
with indulgence the representation of an injury, to which 
I have recently been exposed under the apparent sanction 
of your name. As a resource to rescue myself from pecu¬ 
niary embarrassment, and to provide for a numerous family 
at the close of an anxious life, I have counted upon the 
emoluments that might arise from a portrait of George 
Washington, engraved by an artist of -talent. It was there¬ 
fore with pleasure, that I found myself invited by Mr. Bing¬ 
ham to take the portrait of President Washington to be 
presented to your Lordship; as I knew of no one in whose 
hands it could be placed with more propriety and advantage, 
nor one on whom I could more confidently rely to secure 
the rights and promote the interest of the artist. 

I complied immediately with Mr. Bingham’s request, 
but expressly stipulated with his agent in the transaction, 
that no copy should be taken of the picture nor should any 
engraving be allowed, but with my consent, and for my 
benefit. Scarcely, however, had the picture been received 
by your Lordship, when I had the mortification to find an 
engraving promised to the public ; and soon afterward, at 
a moment when the sensibility of Europe, as well as Amer¬ 
ica, was keenly excited by the death of General Washington, 
the print was published in England and in the United States: 
executed by Mr. Heath, for the emolument of himself and 

( 95 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


Mr. Barry, of New York; and stated to be taken from the 
original picture, by Gilbert Stuart, in the collection of the 
Marquis of Lansdowne. Thus, without my privilege and 
participation, despoiled of the fair fruits of an important 
work, and defeated in the great object of my professional 
pursuit, your Lordship will readily allow me the privilege 
to complain. There is something due to my’feelings as a 
man and to my character as an artist; and to repel as far 
as it is practicable, the wrong that has been committed, 
I have issued proposals for a superior engraving, from a 
portrait intended to be fixed at Mount Vernon, and I ad¬ 
dress myself respectfully to your Lordship, to inquire into 
the source of my misfortune. 

It is obvious that to you, sir, there cannot have been 
a communication of the right which I reserved (for even my 
letter on the subject must, I presume, have miscarried) nor 
am I willing to impute to Mr. Bingham the suppression of so 
important a fact; I can only therefore, at present, suppose 
that some improper artifice has been employed by the person 
immediately interested in the engraving, and I pray your 
Lordship to honor me with an explanation of the means 
by which so unprecedented and unwarrantable a violation 
of the right of property has been accomplished.” 

With the above, there was found the draft of another 
letter, evidently addressed to Mr. Barry, who, it was under¬ 
stood by Stuart, was connected with Heath in bringing out 
the engraving. 


(96) 


GILBERT STUART 


Sir:—When the portrait of General Washington was 
undertaken for Mr. Bingham, it was on the express condition 
that I should retain the exclusive right of making an engrav¬ 
ing from it. It had indeed, been the object of the most 
valuable years of my life to obtain the portrait, with a view 
to such a right; and surely, sir, you, who have endeavored 
to deprive me of it for your own emolument could not have 
been ignorant of its value, when you employed Mr. Heath 
on the occasion. I know not on what terms Mr. Bingham 
presented the picture to the Marquis of Lansdowne, but 
I am persuaded that nobleman has either been imposed upon 
by some misrepresentation, or has never received the letter 
which I addressed to him on the subject. I shall however 
endeavor speedily and fully to develop all the circumstances 
of so cruel an outrage upon the property of an artist (and 
the chief hope of a numerous family) and, in the meantime, 
I shall take proper measures to prevent, as far as it is practi¬ 
cable, the injury that is meditated to my fortune; and I may 
add, from a view of Mr. Heath’s print, to my professional 
reputation.” 

It will be seen by the above how alive Stuart was to the 
loss he had sustained, and how keenly he felt the injury that 
had been done him. He never forgot it, nor did he forgive 

the parties to the transaction. 

After the death of the Marquis of Lansdowne his 
pictures were sold, and Stuart’s Washington was bought 

( 97 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


by Mr. Samuel Williams, an American, but long a resident 
of London, for ^540 15s and when later on Mr. Williams’ 
affairs became insolvent his creditors disposed of the Lans- 
downe Washington by lottery; forty tickets were sold at 
fifty guineas each. It became the property of John D. 
Lewis who was then a resident of St. Petersburg, and 
head of the only commission house then established in 
Russia. The picture however was never taken to St. Peters¬ 
burg, but was left with the trustees in London. It was in¬ 
herited in 1841 by his son John Delaware Lewis, M. P., who 
in 1876 allowed it to be sent to this country for the Centen¬ 
nial Exposition in Philadelphia. This picture subsequently 
passed into the possession of Lord Rosebery who paid two 
thousand guineas for it in 1890. It now hangs in his 
London house. 

Stuart painted a number of other full-length portraits 
of Washington, some copies of the Lansdowne type, while 
others are known as the “Tea-pot” portraits, so called on 
account of the position of the arms, which suggest the spout 
and handle of a tea-pot. This picture shows Washington 
standing full-length, head to left; the right arm which is 
extended as if in the act of speaking, in the Lansdowne 
picture, is here shown as resting on the table; the pose 
of the figure and the position of the feet are different, and 
the rug has beon changed to a tessellated floor. The head 
is a copy of the Athenaeum painting, and was not drawn 
from life. 


(98) 


GILBERT STUART 




The Athenaeum Head 

This portrait of Washington, with its companion picture 
of his wife, unfinished as to some of the details, was painted 
from life in 1796 in Stuart’s studio in Germantown, when 
Washington was sixty-four years of age. 

Philadelphia at this time was full of visitors who 
flocked to his rooms on Chestnut Street at all times of the 
day, not only to see the great artist at work, but to enjoy 
the pleasure of his society as well, so that his workroom 
became almost a salon. Being overrun with callers as well 
as sitters, Stuart was forced finally to move to Germantown 
where his painting-room here, became quite as popular as his 
studio in the city, and was the resort of most of the dis¬ 
tinguished men and women who lived in and around Phila¬ 
delphia at that time. 

The vogue for Stuart was so great that it was im¬ 
possible for him to keep all his engagements but in the 
midst of his great popularity, he was pleased to be able 
to paint again the features of the President, and find that 
Mrs. Washington considered Germantown within pleasant 
driving distance of their home in Philadelphia. 

Upon his arrival in the suburb, Stuart rented a house 
(now numbered 5140 Main Street) from one Samuel Bring- 
hurst. A little two-story barn back of the house proved 
a convenient spot for a studio, and this was soon fitted 
and used as the artist’s workroom. Its inside walls 

(99) 



up 



GILBERT STUART 


in many places showed the daubs of Stuart’s brush until 
a fire destroyed the building some years ago. 

“William Wynne Wister says that Samuel Ashmead, 
whose father-in-law, Samuel Bringhurat, rented the German¬ 
town premises to Stuart, and of whose heirs Mr. Wister 
bought the property, told him that when General Washing¬ 
ton was visiting the studio for a sitting, he was in the habit 
of walking in the garden and eating fruit from an apple- 
tree, which in Mr. Wister’s time in recent years, still stood 
and bore fruit. The apple incident if correct, makes the 
painting of the portrait occur in the late summer or early 
fall.” In accordance with the record of certain authentic 
dates relative to various incidents in Washington’s life, it is 
surmised that the sittings for the famous Athenaeum Head 
were given in Germantown between August 21st and 
September 19th, 1796. 

It was while Stuart was painting this picture that a 
curious scene occurred, which has been related by Sparks 
as one of the few instances when Washington’s remarkable 
self-control lapsed into temporary excitement : 

“ One morning, as the artist approached the house, the 

street door and inner door were open, so that his eye led 

directly into the parlor, and just as he was about to ascend 

the steps, he saw Washington seize a man by the collar and 

thrust him violently across the room. This was an awkward 

moment to enter the house ; he passed on a short distance 

(100) 


GILBERT STUART 


but immediately returned and found the President sitting 
very composedly in a chair. After the salutations, his first 
words were : ‘ Mr. Stuart, when you went away, you turned 
the face ol your picture towards the wall, and gave directions 
that it should remain so, to prevent it receiving any injury ; 
but when I came into the room this morning, the face of the 
picture was turned outward, as you see it, the doors were 
open, and here was a fellow raising a dust with a broom, 
and I know not but that the picture is ruined.’ It so 
happened however, that no essential harm was done, and 
the artist proceeded with his task.” 

These original studies of General and Mrs. Washington 
remained in the possession of the Stuart family until pur¬ 
chased from the artist’s widow in 1831 for fifteen hundred 
dollars. After the death of Stuart they were offered to the 
State of Massachusetts for the sum of one thousand dollars, 
which offer was declined. Subsequently an English gentle¬ 
man offered his widow ten thousand dollars for the pair, but 
while she was hesitating, thinking they ought to remain in 
America, he became impatient, and returned to England. 
Some time after that, an offer of fifteen hundred dollars was 
made for them by a number of gentlemen who joined to¬ 
gether in the purchase and presented them to the Boston 
Athenaeum Society, The pictures are now in the Boston 
Museum of Fine Arts where they are visited by pilgrims 

from all over the United States. 

(101) 


GILBERT STUART 


It was upon this portrait of Washington that Stuart did 
realize a quota of the fortune he had expected to derive from 
his paintings of the President. That he left them unfinished 
as to the background a nd some minor details does not de* 
tract from their interest as life studies, and shows us Stuart’s 
method of proceeding with a portrait. The ground is a deli¬ 
cate fog-gray; the entire head is finished in low tones before 
the lights are accentuated, or the shades deepened, and even 
the eyes are hazy. The next stage would have been to 
bring it up into modeling, the very last touch being the 
pupils of the eyes, when everything else had been finished. 
His reason for not finishing these pictures was that he 
wished to retain the head of Washington as a copy; he 
realized that he could never do anything better, and so he 
refused to part with it, using it as a model. From it he 
painted many replicas, a few good, some fair, and many in¬ 
different, but all showing unmistakable evidence of Stuart’s 
hand; but it became mere pot-boiling, so to speak. The 
regular price of the replicas was one hundred dollars, and 
Stuart has been much quoted as referring to these copies as 
his “hundred dollar pieces”; certain it is that whenever he 
needed ready money (which he very frequently did) he would 
paint a copy or replica which invariably sold for that price. 
It has often been stated that Washington was very anxious 
to get possession of the original life portrait and repeatedly 
asked that it be finished and sent to him. 

(102) 


GILBERT STUART 


One day Mrs. Washington called with the General and 
begged to know when she might have the pictures. Stuart 
replied he would send her the paintings as soon as they were 
finished, but he took care never to put in the finished back¬ 
grounds and so managed to retain possession of them to the 
last. Stuart, it is said, remarked when standing in front of 
the original life-study of Washington, that he never could 
make a copy of it to satisfy himself, and that towards the 
last, after having made so many replicas, he found himself 
working mechanically, and with little interest in his work. 

Washington must have realized how important to the 
artist this life study was, for he himself never really pressed 
it, and on one occasion on retiring with Mrs. Washington 
from the artist’s studio, he returned to Mr. Stuart and said 
he saw plainly of what advantage the picture must be to him, 
and therefore begged him to retain the painting at his 
pleasure. 

Miss Jane Stuart, the artist’s daughter, gives a very 
different version of the story: 

“When General and Mrs. Washington took their last 
sittings, my father told the President that it would be of 
great importance to him to retain the originals, to which 
Washington replied: “Certainly, Mr. Stuart, if they are of 
consequence to you ; I shall be perfectly satisfied with copies 
from your hand, as it will be impossible for me to sit again 
at present.” 


(103 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


The first replicas made by Stuart from his original life 
study were done for Washington’s Virginia home, his much 
beloved Mount Vernon. To quote again from Miss Stuart: 

“A short time after the pictures were finished the 
President called upon my father to express the perfect 
satisfaction of Mrs. Washington and himself at his success : 
he promised that if he should sit again for his portrait it 
would be to him. 

“ My father at this time had so many commissions to 
copy the head of the President, and the anxiety to posess 
them was so great, that gentlemen would tell him if he 
would only make a sketch they would be satisfied, and 
as he was painting other distinguished men of the day, 
and hurrying to complete their portraits, these Washingtons 
were, with some exceptions, literally nothing but sketches.” 

Stuart very probably worked on several of these at the 
same time, painting a few hours on each, and completing 
a portrait when it was required. 

After the death of Washington, the artist said that so 
many people wrote to him to ask if certain heads of the 
President had been painted from life that his reply was, “ If 
the General had sat for all these portraits, he could have 
done nothing else, our Independence would have been a 
secondary matter, or out of the question.” 

The exact number of replicas made of the Athenaeum 
Head by Stuart is almost impossible to estimate; those 

(104) 



WASHINGTON, No. 24 












GILBERT STUART 


quoted in the following record are listed as being gener¬ 
ally considered undisputed by authorities upon the works 
of Gilbert Stuart. Of course the pictures have been much 
copied by other artists, almost every painter in America 
during the nineteenth century having tried his hand in 
copying from the originals. In recent years since the value 
of Stuart’s work has shown such a great advance, any 
number of so-called “ Stuarts ” have appeared. Many, sub¬ 
mitted to the author for his opinion, were undoubtedly 
copies, some being painted, evidently to deceive the public, 
on old canvas, or on panels similar to those used by Stuart. 
To show that such cheats do not belong entirely to the 
present day we have only to recall the story related by 
Stuart to Dunlap of his first and only interview with Win- 
stanley; to tell the tale in the artist’s own words: 

“When I lived at Germantown a pert young man called 
on me, and addressed me thus: 

“You are Mr. Stuart, the great painter? 

“ My name is Stuart, sir. 

“My name is Winstanley, sir; you must have heard of 

me. 

“Not that I recollect, sir. 

“No! Well, Mr. Stuart, I have been copying your full- 
length of Washington; I have made a number of copies; I 
have now six that I have brought on to Philadelphia ; I have 
got a room in the State House, and I have put them up ; 

(105) 


GILBERT STUART 


before I show them to the public and offer them for sale, I 
have a proposal to make to you. 

“ Go on, sir. 

“ It would enhance their value, you know; if I could say 
that you had given them the last touch. Now, sir, all you 
have to do is to ride to town, and give each of them a tap, 
you know, with your riding-switch,—-just thus, you know, and 
we will share the amount of the sale. 

“Did you ever know that I was a swindler? 

“Sir—oh, you mistake, you know.” 

Here the narrative goes on to say, the painter rose to 
his full height, as he turned upon his visitor, and said: 

“You will please to walk down stairs, sir, very quickly, 
or I shall throw you out at the window; ” and Stuart suiting 
his actions to his words, left his visitor no alternative but to 
hurry away from the presence of the enraged artist. 

Aggravating as was this theft, it was subsequently the 
means of bringing Stuart a good order, and of his painting 
his full-length portrait of Washington, standing by the white 
horse, in full uniform, with the British fleet in the harbor. 

This painting known as “Washington at Dorchester 
Heights” was originally painted for Faneuil Hall. There 
are several versions of the story, but the following furnished 
by Miss Jane Stuart to a friend, is undoubtedly correct. 

“In an interesting conversation with Mr. Crawford, the 

artist, in 1846, which I recorded at the time, Mr. Quincy said, 

(106) 


GILBERT STUART 


‘A full-length portrait of Washington was painted by Gilbert 
Stuart for the Marquis of Lansdowne. Winstanley went to 
London and while there made several copies of it. One of 
them he brought back with him, and by my permission it was 
put up in my office in Court Street. He wished to borrow 
money on it from me, but I refused. He then took it away, 
and afterwards induced Mr. S. Parkman to lend him money 
on it; he then went off leaving the picture behind him. 

Mr. Parkman offered to present the portrait to the town 
of Boston, to be hung in Faneuil Hall; but when the gift was 
offered in a town-meeting, a blacksmith from the north end 
rose up and vehemently opposed its acceptance, saying it 
would be a lasting disgrace to the town of Boston to accept 
a copy by another artist, of Stuart’s portrait of Washington, 
when the artist himself was then residing in Boston, and he 
ought to be employed to paint an original for Faneuil Hall. 
The offer of the Winstanley picture was declined, the black¬ 
smith carried his point, and Mr. Parkman apparently coin¬ 
cided in his opinion, for he employed Stuart to paint a full- 
length portrait which he presented to Faneuil Hall.’ ” 

This picture of “Washington at Dorchester Heights,” 
is at present deposited for safe keeping in the Museum of 
Fine Arts, and a copy of the original painting made by Jane 
Stuart, has been hung in its old place in Faneuil Hall; Miss 
Stuart received the same sum (six hundred dollars) for her 
copy, as was originally paid her father. 

(107) 


GILBERT STUART 


It was to Stuart’s picture in Faneuil Hall that Edward 
Everett in his eulogy of Lafayette, when he had apostro¬ 
phized the bust of that distinguished patriot, turned and ex¬ 
claimed : “Speak glorious Washington! Break the long 
silence of that votive canvas!” words that electrified every 
one present. 

It has been the custom generally to class all of the 
“ Stuart-Washington ” busts that face to the left, as “Athen¬ 
aeums.” The author would like to draw special attention 
to the portrait numbered 36 owned by the Historical Society 
of Pennsylvania, and portrait numbered 58 owned by Mr. 
Oscar S. Straus of New York. The strong resemblance 
between them will be noticed at the first glance, and at the 
second the very marked differences between them and the 
Athenaeum picture will be seen. This shows not only 
in the face, but there is a feeling engendered in those 
who study the canvases that the subject from which they 
were painted was standing , while all will agree after a 
study of the busts painted from the Athenaeum head 
that the subject was seated. Again the features and the 
shadows on the face would all seem to indicate to a 
close student of the matter, that they were painted from 
the full-length picture. The author therefore makes the 
suggestion, and is of the opinion that these two portraits 
were painted from the Lansdowne type full-length pictures 
and not from the Athenaeum. 

(108) 


GILBERT STUART 


The portrait numbered 103, owned by Mr. Walter 
Jennings of New York has frequently been spoken of as 
resembling the “Tea-pot” full-length type more than the 
Athenaeum head. This is also the case with the portrait 
numbered 93 owned by Mrs. Ferree Brinton of Philadelphia ; 
both these pictures the author thinks were painted from the 
full-length so called “Tea-pot” portraits. 

Miss Jane Stuart states that it had been her father’s 
intention to have the portraits of General and Mrs. Wash¬ 
ington engraved by William Sharp, who was by all odds 
the greatest line engraver in Europe. This was not only 
to perpetuate his own reputation; but also to provide in 
a way for his family after his death; unfortunately the matter 
was never arranged. The Athenaeum Head of Washington 
was subsequently engraved by Joseph Andrews, and in the 
most exquisite manner; but Stuart’s family could derive 
no benefit from it, for the picture had then passed out of 
their possession. 

It might be well here to explain that the original Athen¬ 
aeum Heads are life size in drawing, painted on canvases 
that are 42 y 2 inches high and 34wide, the heads are 
finished, but the backgrounds remain unfinished, a gray- 
brown or fog color being vignetted back of the heads. 
In the President’s portrait the head is turned slightly to 
the left, and he is looking at the spectator with a grave, 

thoughtful expression. In Mrs. Washington’s portrait the 

(109) 


GILBERT STUART 


head is turned slightly to the right, and she wears a large 
cap of muslin edged with a full ruffle. In the finished bust 
portraits of Washington drawn by Stuart from the Athen¬ 
aeum Head, the bust is seen nearly to the waist, black coat, 
powdered hair, lace or ruffle jabot, and a plain or curtain 
background. The paintings vary or show slight changes in 
treatment. This is especially noticed in the jabot which at 
that time was worn by men in the bosom of the shirt; in 
some it shows a full ruffle of linen or cambric, in others a 
lace jabot, and Stuart has painted this lace with the fewest 
possible strokes, but producing a result as finished and ex¬ 
quisite as the best examples of the English school. One 
of the most characteristic points in Stuart’s American por¬ 
traits is the thinness of his painting ; it seems sometimes, 
as if his paint hardly covered his canvas, yet the features 
of his sitters are modeled with a vigor and strength that 
suggest the use of more pigment than he ever employed. 

Tuckerman in his book on American Artists, says of 
the Athenaeum Head of Washington ; 

o 7 

“The freshness of the color, the studious modeling of 
the brow, the mingling of clear purpose and benevolence 
in the eye, and a thorough nobleness and dignity in the 
whole head, realize all that the most intelligent admirer 
of the original has imagined,—not, indeed, when thinking 
of him as a leader of armies, but in the last analysis, and 
complete image of the hero in retirement, in all the 

(no) 


con- 


GILBERT STUART 


sciousness of a sublime career, unimpeachable fidelity to a 
national trust, and the eternal gratitude of a free people. 
It is this masterpiece of Stuart that has not only perpetu¬ 
ated, but distributed over the globe, the resemblance of 
Washington. It has sometimes been lamented that so popu¬ 
lar a work does not represent him in the aspect of a success¬ 
ful warrior, or in the flush of youth; but there seems to 
be a singular harmony between this venerable image—so 
majestic, benignant, and serene—and the absolute character 
and peculiar example of Washington, separated from what 
was purely incidental in his life. Dauntless courage, loyalty 
to a just but sometimes desperate cause, hope through the 
most hopeless crises, and a tone of feeling the most exalted, 
united to habits of candid simplicity, are better embodied in 
such a calm, magnanimous mature image, full of dignity and 
sweetness than if portrayed in battle array or melodramatic 
attitude, Let such pictures as David’s “Napoleon,”—with 
prancing steed, flashing eye and waving sword—represent 
the mere victor and military genius; but he, who spurned a 
crown, knew no watchword but duty, no goal but freedom 
and justice, and no reward but the approval of conscience 
and the gratitude of a country, lives more appropriately, both 
to memory and in art, under the aspect of a finished life, 
crowned with the harvest of honor and peace, and serene in 
the consummation of disinterested purpose.” 

Thus did Gilbert Stuart nobly fulfill the destiny which 

( hi ) 


GILBERT STUART 


Providence allotted to him, and that he executed the im¬ 
portant task which came to his hand satisfactorily and in a 
manner worthy of the great subject of his brush, there can 
be no doubt. 


(112) 


GILBERT STUART 


GEORGE WASHINGTON 

Vaughan type. 

(Showing the right side of the face.) 

Nos. i to 14. 

These fourteen portraits of Washington (life-size figure 
seen almost to the waist, and turned slightly to the right, 
showing the right side of the face, hair powdered and tied 
with black ribbon; he wears a full neck-cloth and ruffled 
shirt or jabot) were the earliest that Stuart painted. They 
are known as the “Vaughan type” from the name of the 
owner of the painting listed as No. 1. 


(11 3 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


The author believes this is the first portrait of Wash¬ 
ington painted from life in September, 1795, at the 
southeast corner of Fifth and Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia. 
The painting was taken to London in the late fall of 1795 
and there Thomas Holloway the English engraver made a 
plate from it which is dated Novr. 2nd, 1796, and appeared 
in “Lavater’s Physiognomy.” No other engraved portrait 
of Washington by Gilbert Stuart bears so early a date. It 
was then owned by Samuel Vaughan of London (1752- 
1850); it passed on to his son William, and was acquired 
from his executors, and brought back to America by Joseph 
Harrison, Jr., the Philadelphia financier and art collector. 
In 1912 it was purchased by Mr. Thomas B. Clarke of New 
York, the present owner, from the sale of pictures belonging 
to the Harrison estate after the death of Joseph Harrison’s 
widow. 

Canvas 23^" X 29". Bust, showing the right side of 
the face, powdered hair, black coat, linen jabot, full neck¬ 
cloth, plain background. 

Note. —Rembrandt Peale, who was painting Washington at the same 
time, wrote in 1859 after seeing the picture again, “It is the first, original 
portrait painted by Stuart in 1795 at the same time Washington sat to me.” 
(Addressed to Jos. Harrison.) Again on March 16th, 1846, in a letter 
from Rembrandt Peale, addressed to C. E. Lester, Esq., “ Stuart’s first por¬ 
trait was painted same time as mine, Washington giving Stuart his first sitting 
between my first and second.” (Signed) R. Peale. 

This letter and the one addressed to Joseph Harrison, 
are both in the possession of Thomas B. Clarke, Esq., of 
New York. 


(114) 



WASHINGTON, No. 1 












GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was painted in Philadelphia 

at the southeast corner of 5th and Chestnut Sts., in 
September, 1 795 > f° r Stuart’s warm friend Colonel George 
Gibbs of New York, who died in 1833. Col. Gibbs sold 
this picture to his sister Mrs. William Ellery Channing, who 
in 1858 gave it to her son Dr. William F. Channing, who 
sold it to the late Samuel P. Avery of New York about 1889. 
It was purchased from him by the Metropolitan Museum of 
New York about J907. In Mason’s Life of Stuart, he says, 
“It is claimed this portrait was in Stuart’s studio at a time 
he was having sittings from Washington, and that the artist 
availed himself of the opportunity thus afforded for revisions 
and corrections from life.” It is impossible at this time to 
give the order in which Stuart painted these first pictures of 
Washington. For further details of this picture see “ Some 
account of the ‘ Gibbs-Channing ’ Portrait of Geo. Washing¬ 
ton. Pub. De Vinne & Co., N. Y., 1900.” 

Canvas, H. 30^", W. 25^". 

Bust showing the right side of the face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled jabot and full neck-cloth; an olive-green 
curtain is draped in the background, showing the sky at the 
lower right corner. 

In this portrait the vividness of color is perfectly pre¬ 
served and it possesses all the artistic perfection of Stuart’s 
brush. 


(ns) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This picture of Washington was painted in Philadelphia 
in 1795. It is said to have been owned by William 
Bingham of Philadelphia, senator to Congress, and patron of 
the Fine Arts, for whom Stuart also painted the full-length 
portrait the following year. We know that it was purchased 
later by James Kitchen, proprietor of the “Old Exchange 
Coffee House,” Philadelphia, and that it was inherited by his 
son Dr. James Kitchen in 1828. It was purchased by the 
late Charles Henry Hart who sold it to Mr. Marsden J. 
Perry of Providence, Rhode Island, who sold it in 1921 to 
Mr. Arthur Meeker of Chicago, Ill. 

Canvas, bust showing the right side of face, powdered 
hair, black coat, ruffled linen jabot, full neck-cloth, red curtain 
in background. 



( 116) 


GILBERT STUART 


A This portrait of Washington was noted in Stuart’s list 

of April 20th, 1795, as painted for “- Scott, Esq., 

Lancaster.” Mr. Alexander Scott died in 1810. It is said 
the portrait was sold to Edward Brien, and was inherited 
by his granddaughter Mrs. Anna R. Reilly of Trenton, N. J., 
who sold it to Charles A. Munn of New York. For further 
history of picture see “Some Oldtime Lancaster Portraits of 
Washington,” by Judge C. I. Landis. Pub. by Lancaster 
Historical Soc., Feb. 2nd, 1917, Vol. XXI, No. 2* Canvas, 
2 5” X 30”. Bust, showing right side of face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled jabot, full neck-cloth. The background 

has no curtain and is a mellow crimson or maroon. 

/■ • 

* Also see “ Three Types of Washington Portraits,” by Chas. A. Munn, 
1908, and the New York Sun y Jan. 21st, 1917, “ Tracing Pedigrees of Two 
Stuart’s Washingtons,” by Chas. Henry Hart. 


( 117) 



GILBERT STUART 


gj This portrait of Washington was ownfcd in England, for 
many years, by the family of Lord Camperdown the 
British Admiral, born in Dundee 1731, died 1804. It was 
purchased from the family in England by M. Knoedler & Co., 
and brought to New York and sold by them to the late 
Henry Clay Frick, Esq., and is at present in his residence in 
New York. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, hair powdered 
and tied with a black ribbon; he wears a red-brown coat, full 
neck-cloth, ruffled shirt or linen jabot. An olive-green cur¬ 
tain hangs in the background, showing the sky at the lower 
right corner of the picture. 

Canvas, size 23^" X 29^". 


C 118 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was owned for many years 
by the Fisher family of Philadelphia. It was purchased 
in 1921 by Mrs. George F. Tyler of Philadelphia. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled linen jabot, full neck-cloth. A red-brown 
curtain in background, showing the blue sky at lower right 
corner. Canvas, 25" X 30". 


Note.—A close copy of the “ Gibbs-Channing ” picture No. 2. This 
picture is said to have been purchased from the artist by Mr. Fisher, and 
had never been out of the possession of the family, until the sale in 1921. 


( 119) 


GILBERT STUART 


*7 This portrait of Washington was the property of General 
Henry Lee, known as “Light Horse Harry Lee” and 
was highly prized by him. General Lee, finding himself 
unable to pay a debt owing Mr. Somerville of Charles Co., 
Maryland, turned over to him the silver, library, and pic¬ 
tures of the Lee homestead in Stratford, Va. After the 
death of Mr. Somerville the portrait was left to his brother, 
Vernon Somerville of Bloomsbury, Maryland. It was pur¬ 
chased from him by his nephew Vernon Brien, from whom 
Mr. John B. Morris bought it in 1856. It has since re¬ 
mained in the Morris family, first in possession of Mrs. 
Thomas Hollingsworth Morris, and in 1915 it was inherited 
by her daughter Mrs. Clayton C. Hall, of Ruxton, Maryland. 

There are four interesting documents in connection with 
the portrait: The first one is written by Mrs. Henry Winter 
Davis, daughter of Mr. J. B. Morris, and states that General 
Lee gave his library, silver, and pictures to satisfy a debt to 
Mr. Somerville. 

The second is a statement written by Mr. Vernon 
Somerville that the portrait had previously been in the pos¬ 
session of General Henry Lee. 

The third is the receipt from Mr. Vernon Brien to Mr. 
J. B. Morris for payment of the portraits. 

Fourth, is an excerpt from a letter written by G. N. 
Carter in 1858 saying that his mother, who was the daughter 
of General Lee, well remembered the portrait hanging in the 
Lee Home. 


(120) 


GILBERT STUART 


Mentioned in “Original Portraits of Washington,’’ by 
Elizabeth Bryant Johnston, Boston, 1882, page 94. 

Purchased in 1922 by M. Knoedler & Co., and now 
owned by Edward S. Harkness of New York. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, hair powdered 
and tied with black ribbon; he wears a black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, ruffled shirt or linen jabot. Plain tint background. 

Canvas, 29" X 24". 


(721) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q This portrait of Washington was owned in Ireland for 
many years, where it was in the possession of the Sinclair 
family of Dublin. It was purchased in London by Knoedler 
& Co., and brought to New York in 1920, and purchased by 
the Hon. Andrew W. Mellon of Pittsburgh, Penna. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, hair powdered 
and tied with a black ribbon; he wears a black coat, full 
neck-cloth, ruffled shirt or jabot, plain background. Canvas 
size 24" X 29*^". 


(122) 


* 


GILBERT STUART 

This portrait of Washington has been in the possession 
of the Coleman family of Philadelphia for many years. 
It is a strong presentation of Washington, brilliant in color; 
it has recently been cleaned by M. Knoedler & Co., New 
York. Present owner Mr. G. Dawson Coleman, Philadel¬ 
phia. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled linen jabot, full neck-cloth, plain back¬ 
ground. Canvas, 24^" X 29^". 

Note.—A close copy of the first picture, No. 1 . 


( 123) 


GILBERT STUART 


10 


This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
Alexander Contee Hanson. He was Chancellor of 


Maryland and one of General Washington’s secretaries and 
aides. It was purchased directly from the Howard family of 
Belmont, Howard Co., Maryland, in March of 1913, by 
Herbert L. Pratt of New York. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled linen jabot, full neck-cloth; plain neutral 
tint background. Twilled canvas, 25" X 31". 


» 


% 


(124) 


GILBERT STUART 


11 This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
Mrs. Hugh Thompson (nee Maria Ball Carter) a 
grand niece of General Washington ; she later married Prof. 
George Tucker of the University of Virginia. It descended 
to Mrs. George Rives and Mrs. Gessner Harrison daughters 
of Prof. Tucker. In 1874 they sold it to Francis Robert 
Rives, who in 1908 bequeathed it to his son George L. Rives 
of New York; it is now the property of his wife. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, powdered hair, 
black coat, ruffled linen jabot, full neck-cloth, plain back¬ 
ground. Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(125) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
John Eager Howard (1752-1827) of “ Belvedere,” 
Maryland. It was inherited by his son who sold it to the 
late Willard Straight of New York. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, powdered 
hair, full neck-cloth with ruffled linen shirt or jabot, plain 
background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(126) 


GILBERT STUART 


"J ^ This portrait of Washington was noted on Stuart’s 
list of April 20th, 1795, as painted for “ Wm. Ludwell 
Lee, Greenspring, Va.” After the death of Wm. L. Lee it 
was inherited by his nephew Robert E. Lee. It was acquired 
by Volkner, of Baltimore, a picture restorer, who gave it to 
Dr. Crim from whom it came to Dr. Geo. Reuling of 
Baltimore, from whose estate it came to John F. Braun, of 
Philadelphia. 


Note. —In one of Charles Henry Hart’s letters, dated December 30th, 
1914, he speaks of this portrait as differing from the Vaughan portrait in 
some details and combining characteristics of the Athenaeum type, making 
an agreeable combination. 

Canvas, 24" X 28". Bust, showing right side of face, 
the hair and neck-cloth are less minutely handled than in the 
others of this type. 


(127) 


GILBERT STUART 


A A This portrait of Washington was purchased by Dr. 

Gilbert Parker and Charles Henry Hart at an auction 
held in Philadelphia, of the collection of Charles Steigerwalt 
of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. After the deaths of Dr. Parker 
and Mr. Hart, the painting was sold by William Macbeth 
Inc. of New York to the Art House Inc. of New York. 

Bust, showing the right side of the face, plain back¬ 
ground, black coat, ruffled linen jabot. 

Canvas, size 25" X 30". 


(128) 



. 1 4 


WASH I N GTO N 


No 












GILBERT STUART 


15 This portrait of Washington has been frequently re¬ 
ferred to as the “Unique type,” as no replica of it is 
known. The features and composition suggest the Vaughan 
type, but the head is turned to the left as in the Athenaeum, 
and the jabot is of lace. The author is of the opinion that it 
was the first portrait that Stuart painted after his fourteen 
examples of the Vaughan type. In this he tried the experi¬ 
ment of painting the left side of the face. This he evidently 
preferred as all his subsequent portraits are of the Athe¬ 
naeum type with the head to the left. This picture was 
owned by General Edward Hand of Lancaster, who was a 
close friend of Washington. Genl. Hand occupied the posi¬ 
tion of Adjutant-General of the Continental Army. The 
picture was bought at the sale of his property by Matthias 
Zahm, and his grandson sold it to Chas. H. Barr; from him 
it passed on to Henry T. Coates who sold it through Charles 
H. Hart to Alexander Smith Cochran of New York; it hangs 
in the Philipps Manor House, Yonkers, New York. 

Canvas about 25" X 30". Bust to left, the composition 
and expression being similar to the “Vaughan type.” Black 
coat, powdered hair, full neck-cloth, lace jabot, plain back¬ 
ground. 

For additional information see “Some Oldtime Lan¬ 
caster Portraits of Washington.” By Judge C. I. Landis. 
Pub. in 1917 by Lancaster County Historical Society, also 
“Tracing Pedigrees of Two Stuart’s Washington,” by 
Charles Henry Hart, in the New York Sun of Jan. 21st, 1917. 

(129) 



GILBERT STUART 


GEORGE WASHINGTON 

Lansdowne, tea-pot, and other full-length portraits, 
Nos. 16 to 29. 

Half and three-quarter length portraits. Nos. 29 to 32. 


(131) 


GILBERT STUART 


*| S' Full-length portrait of Washington. (Lansdowne 
^ type.) 1 ° April, 1796, Stuart painted his second 
portrait of Washington from life, a full-length standing figure 
facing left with the right arm extended as if in the act of 
speaking. The portrait was painted for William Bingham 
of Philadelphia, senator in Congress, patron of the Fine 
Arts; and friend of the artist, for whom it is said he painted 
the portrait of the President in 1795, showing the right side 
of the face. The painting owned by the Pennsylvania 
Academy of the Fine Arts, is signed “G. Stuart, 1796,” 
and is supposed to be the original; a replica was ordered 
by Mr. Bingham for the Earl of Shelburne, afterwards first 
Marquis of Lansdowne. 

The Academy’s picture is in perfect condition, having 
done almost no traveling. When it was finished it was hung 
in Mr. Bingham’s mansion “Lansdowne,” on the west side 
of the Schuylkill, the grounds of which are now included in 
Fairmount Park. After the death of William Bingham it was 
transferred to the gallery of the Academy and has hung 
there undisturbed for more than a century. The signature 
is plainly visible in the lower left-hand corner of the canvas ; 
the colors are as fresh today as they were when the painting 
was executed. 

Canvas, size 96" X 60". 


(132) 


GILBERT STUART 


17 This portrait of Washington is a replica of No. 16 

and was painted from the original owned by the 
Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. It was ordered by 
]\Ir. Bingham for Lord Lansdowne; after his death it was 
purchased by Samuel Williams a British merchant for five 
hundred and fifty pounds; Mr. Williams becoming insolv¬ 
ent, his creditors disposed of the picture by lottery, when 
it became the property of John Delaware Lewis, M. P., 
who loaned it to the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia 
in 1876. The picture subsequently passed into the hands 
of the Earl of Rosebery and hangs in Carleton House, 
London. 

Canvas, size 96" X 60" (not signed or dated). 


( 1 33 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


O This portrait of Washington is a replica of No. 16 
and was painted for William Constable, and formerly 
hung in the Old Constable House until 1803, when it was 
bequeathed to Constable’s son William Constable of Sche¬ 
nectady, N. Y., who moved it to the Pierrepont Mansion on 
Pierrepont Place, Brooklyn, N. Y., where it has remained 
ever since. It was purchased in 1812 by Mr. H. E. Pierre¬ 
pont, and is now owned by Mr. Robert Low Pierrepont. 

This picture was copied by Prime in 1841 for the Coun¬ 
cil Chamber, Hudson, N. Y. Also copied by Frothingham 
and owned by Mr. Low of Salem. 

Canvas, 96^" X 60 

Note. —From the recollections of Mrs. H. B. Pierrepont. “ After 
our return from England in 1795 my father went to Philadelphia and at the . 
request of his mother engaged Gilbert Stuart to take his likeness for his 
family. Gilbert Stuart was at the time of my father’s visit (1796) painting 
a full-length portrait of Washington for Mr. Bingham who presented it to 
the Marquis of Lansdowne. My father was so much pleased with it that he 
engaged Stuart to paint one for him at the same time, as the General was 
giving him sittings. Stuart who was well acquainted with my father prom¬ 
ised both pictures should be worked upon alternatively, so that both should 
be originals.” 


( 134) 


GILBERT STUART 


19 This full-length portrait of Washington is of the 

“Lansdowne type,” but shows several details varying 
from the original. It is said to have hung at one time in 
Tammany Hall, New York City. It was acquired by Wm. 
M. Tweed who presented it to his daughter Mrs. Macginnis 
of New Orleans. It was sold by the heirs to the Ehrich 
Gallery, New York. 

It is supposed that this painting was the one owned 
originally by Gardiner Baker of New York. In 1778 Baker 
went to Boston for the purpose of exhibiting the picture in 
that city, but he was taken down with yellow fever, and died, 
his effects became scattered and all trace of the portrait was 
lost. Canvas, 92" high, 52" wide. 




(135) 


GILBERT STUART 


O This portrait of Washington is a full-length of the 
“Lansdowne” type, and is evidently the study for the 
life-size picture. This picture was in the possession of Rich¬ 
ard Foster Breed of Massachusetts; it was later in England 
in the hands of members of the Breed family until brought 
back to this country by William A. Shaw of Philadelphia 
about 1895, the following letter from the engraver John 
Sartain is of interest. 


Corner Broad & Master Streets, 

Philadelphia, October 1, 1895. 

William A. Shaw, Esquire, 

My dear Sir, 

I thank you for favoring me with the sight of your beautiful Stuart. I 
examined it carefully but it did not need that to decide that it was a genuine 
work of the artist’s own hand, for it was evident at a glance. I imagine it 
must have been his study for the general plan or arrangement before paint¬ 
ing his large life-size picture for Mrs. Bingham, and the head added after he 
had painted Washington from life. 

I congratulate you further on the possession of such a gem from the 
facile brush of the master. 

Yours truly, 

(Signed) John Sartain. 

Canvas, 13" wide, 20" high. 

Acquired by John F. Braun, Esq., of Philadelphia in 
1919. 


(136) 



WAS H I N GTON 


N O 


20 




















GILBERT STUART 


^ *| This full-length portrait of Washington of the “Lans- 
downe type” was presented to the Catholic Club of 
New York City by Mr. Joseph Thouron, a former president 
of the club, who married the daughter of the French consul 
in Mobile, and lived for years in Charleston, S. C. 

Canvas, 96” X 62". 


(137) 


GILBERT STUART 


This full-length portrait of Washington was painted 
for Peter Jay Monroe, Esq., of New York, and was 
purchased from his family in July, 1845, by Mr. James Lenox 
of New York. It is what is known as the “tea-pot” type, 
that is, the arm is not extended and the hand rests on the 
table, the position of the arms suggests the spout and handle 
of a tea-pot. The painting hangs in the picture gallery of 
the New York Public Library, 5th Ave. & 42nd St., New 
York. 

There are slight variations in many of these full-length 
portraits, the attitude being the same, but the figure in this 
portrait is placed more to one side which makes slight 
changes in the accessories. The letters “G. St” appear on 
the leg of the table, the rest of the name being covered by 
the tablecloth. 

The picture was engraved by John Sartain of Philadel¬ 
phia, and Ritchie of New York, for an edition of Washing¬ 
ton’s Farewell Address, published for Mr. James Lenox. 


Note.— See No. 103 for unfinished head that is supposed to be the 
study head used in painting the full-length portraits of this type. 


( 138) 


GILBERT STUART 


23 The history of this full-length portrait of Washington 

painted for the State House in Providence, R. I., is as 
follows: At the February session of the General Assembly, 
1800, the following resolution and preamble was adopted: 
“The citizens of this State having on all proper occasions 
uniformly expressed their inviolate attachment to the person 
of the late General George Washington, and their entire 
approbation of his conduct in public and private life; the 
General Assembly, deeply impressed with the importance of 
perpetuating his eminent virtues, which have shown with 
unrivalled lustre, and of transmitting to posterity the high 
estimate in which he is held by his fellow-citizens, and of 
giving them an opportunity of seeing the likeness of the man 
who was first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of 
his countrymen; and who expressed in his features the be¬ 
nevolence of his nature, maintained in his person the dignity 
of his mind; do resolve that two portraits of him, drawn at 
full-length by some eminent artist, with suitable frames, be 
procured at the expense of the State and that one of them be 
placed in the Senate Chamber in each of the State Houses 
in the counties of Newport and Providence.” The order was 
given Stuart by the General Assembly at the May session, 
1801 ; he received twelve hundred dollars for the two pic¬ 
tures. When the portraits were finished they were framed 
and placed in the care of Joseph Anthony & Co., of Philadel¬ 
phia, by whom they were shipped to Rhode Island on board 

(139) 


GILBERT STUART 


of Gibbs & Charming’s sloop “Eagle.” The pictures were 
received in Newport in October, 1801. They met with an 
enthusiastic reception and for weeks their exhibition drew 
crowds of admirers from all portions of the State. 

Full-length figure standing by table with hand resting 
on document placed upon the table, “tea-pot” type. 

Canvas, size about 95” X 60". 


(140) 



WASHINGTON, No. 23 


























GILBERT STUART 


24 This full-length portrait of Washington painted for 

the State House in Newport, Rhode Island. For the 
history of the painting of this picture see that of the portrait 
in the State House at Providence (No. 23). About 1905 the 
portrait was “restored” and the picture has lost much of 
its former beauty. 

The letters “G. St” appear on the leg of the table, the 
rest of the artist’s name being covered by the tablecloth. 

Canvas, size about 95” X 60”. 

Note.— For many years an excellent copy of this painting by William 
A. Wall hung in the New Bedford Court House, and has frequently been 
quoted as being a replica by Stuart. Wall was a New Bedford artist, a 
student of Thomas Sully, and his copy of Stuart’s painting in Newport was 
purchased by subscription for the Court House at New Bedford, Mass. 


( 141 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This full-length portrait of President Washington 
(“tea-pot” type) by Gilbert Stuart was purchased 
from him by the General Assembly of Connecticut in May, 
1800, at the first session after the death of Washington. It 
was ordered to be hung in the Council Chamber (afterwards 
called the Senate Chamber). The committee to purchase 
the portrait consisted of James Hillhouse, Chauncey Good¬ 
rich and John Trumbull, the poet. It now hangs in the State 
House in Hartford, Conn. The painting has been engraved, 
by Illman & Pilbrow (Baker 261—Hart 647). 

Canvas, size about 95" X 60". 


(142) 






GILBERT STUART 


26 This portrait of Washington is described as being a 
small full-length figure in court dress. The picture 
was said to have been exhibited in the Centennial Exposition 
of 1876 by its owner Mr. George F. Meredith of London, 
who gave its history as having been owned by him for twenty 
years; before that it belonged to his wife’s father the late 
Mr. William Schofield, M. P., for Birmington, who was mar¬ 
ried to an American lady, and it was said the portrait had 
been presented by General Washington to one of her an¬ 
cestors who had been attached to his staff. 

It was taken back to England, after the Centennial Ex¬ 
position, and was brought to the notice of Miss Jane Stuart 
who is said to have recognized it as her father’s work. It 
is now in the National Portrait Gallery in London and is 
catalogued as “Attributed to Gilbert Stuart.” It is the so- 
called “tea-pot” type, on canvas 28” X and was 

purchased by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery 
London, June, 1887. 

Description. —A full-length figure on a small scale, in a black velvet 
suit, white cravat and lace fall, lace ruffles, knee breeches and gilt shoe 
buckles, standing to the left on a marble pavement, resting the fingers of 
his right hand on a paper partially unrolled and laid on table covered with a 
red cloth. The corner leg of the table is seen handsomely carved, composed 
of Roman faces surmounted by eagles grasping thunderbolts. Behind him 
are tall columns and a purple drapery with gilt cords and tassels. To the 
left of the figure beneath the drapery is a bright blue sky with sunrise effect. 

( i43) 


GILBERT STUART 


Upon the table to the left appear the President’s black hat, a silver inkstand 
of classic shape, a couching dog (letter weight), and a few bound volumes 
placed upright; other volumes are seen on the floor, one leaning against the 
leg of the table. The face is seen in three-quarters to the left, close shaven, 
the small very dark eyes fixed on the spectator. His own natural hair is 
powdered, with a black silk bag attached to the collar of the coat. His left 
hand supports his gilt-hilted sword. The entire composition is dignified 
and appears to be a design for a grand historical portrait. 


4 


( 144 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


27 This full-length portrait is “ Washington at Dor¬ 
chester Heights.” Standing figure in uniform ; at the 
right is a white horse, seen from behind. At the left is seen 
the British fleet in the harbor. Washington wears a blue 
coat with gold buttons and epaulettes, white waistcoat, and 
breeches, high boots and spurs; he holds his hat in his right 
hand at his side; his left hand holding the bridle of his horse 
rests on the pummel of his saddle. The sky is covered with 
clouds and with the smoke and reflected flame of cannon. 

Deposited by the City of Boston, at the Boston Museum 
of Fine Arts, in 1876. It was painted on the order of Mr. 
Samuel Parkman for Faneuil Hail in nine working days. 
Stuart’s daughter says the head was copied from the “Athe¬ 
naeum” portrait. Stuart received six hundred dollars for 
the picture. Mi§s St uart has. ..made several copies of her 
father’s original picture. 

Panel, 108” high and 72” wide. 



(145) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was called “small full- 
length of Washington” by Stuart, and was the orig¬ 
inal study for the picture known as “Washington at Dor¬ 
chester Heights,” owned by the City of Boston. In 1810 it 
was owned by Mr. I. P. Davis of Boston ; it then came into 
the possession of Mr. Ignatius Sargent of Brookline, who 
purchased it from the heirs of Mr. Davis. 

Note. —A small copy of the full-length portrait of Washington, stand¬ 
ing beside a white horse (“ Washington at Dorchester Heights ”), owned by 
Mr. Edward R. Warren, is loaned to the Bostonian Society. It has often 
been spoken of as Gilbert Stuart’s study for the large picture (No. 26). It 
is a copy by Jane Stuart, and Mr. Warren states he purchased it from a 
dealer who bought it directly from Miss Stuart at her studio in Newport. It 
is an excellent copy, size 24 " X 36”. 

Note. —The full-length “ Lansdowne type” portrait of Washington 
hanging in the White House, the home of our Presidents, was made by Jane 
Stuart from the original by her father in the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine 
Arts. 

Note. —Another copy of the “ Lansdowne ” portrait hangs in the 
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., made by John Vanderlyn. 

Note. —The full-length portrait of President Washington (Stuart- 
Lansdowne type) owned by the Kentucky State Historical Society at Frank¬ 
fort was painted by Oliver Frazer. In 1834 the State of Kentucky paid 
$550 for this life-size copy by Frazer and ordered it hung in the Old State 
House; after it was abandoned in 1909, it was turned over to the State 
Historical Society. 


( 146) 


GILBERT STUART 


29 This half-length portrait of Washington was painted 

by Stuart in 1797 from the full-length picture that he 
had painted for William Constable, Esq., before the picture 
was sent to New York (No. 18). 

This picture, soon after it was painted, came into the 
possession of General Alexander Hamilton. The tradition 
in the Hamilton family is that it was a gift from Washington. 
Another claim is that it was presented by Mr. William Con¬ 
stable, a merchant of New York, in support of which there 
exists a receipt from the artist, dated Philadelphia, July 13, 
1797, for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for paint¬ 
ing a half-length portrait of Washington (of the above size) 
for Mr. Constable. 

The picture remained in General Hamilton’s possession 
until his death, and with his widow (a daughter of General 
Schuyler) until her death in 1854, when it became the prop¬ 
erty of her son, Mr. James A. Hamilton, who bequeathed it 
to his son, Mr. Alexander Hamilton, who in turn bequeathed 
it (with Ceracchi’s bust of General Hamilton) to the Astor 
Library, subject to the death of his widow. His death 
occurred in 1889. She died in the spring of 1896, when 
these two art objects, which had remained in the library of 
the Hamilton residence near Irvington-on-the-Hudson until 
July, 1896, were transferred to the New York Public Library, 
by the executor, Mr. Philip Schuyler. Canvas, 50" X 40". 

Half-length seated, head to left, holding a document in 
his hands, with a dress-sword resting in his lap. A stone 
pedestal and columns with a curtain form the background, 

and to the left is seen water and shipping. 

(147) 


GILBERT STUART 


^5This portrait of Washington was painted in January, 
^ ^ 1822, for William D. Lewis; the picture was taken 
by him to St. Petersburg when he resided in Russia. It was 
afterwards at his home at Florence Heights, N. J. After 
Mr. Lewis’ death in 1881 it was deposited with the Pennsyl¬ 
vania Academy of the Fine Arts. The head was copied 
from the “Athenaeum” picture. It shows a half or three- 
quarter figure seated at a table, in civil dress, with his right 
thumb and finger ends on a map. The hilt of his sword 
rests against his arm; back of him is a massive crimson cur¬ 
tain with tassels; beyond in the sky is a rainbow. 

Canvas, 34” X 44". 


Note.— Recorded in “ Original Portraits of Washington,” by Elizabeth 
Bryant lohnston, page 103. 

“ A half-length of Washington was originally painted for James Perkins 
Sturgis, and was noted as belonging at that time to Russell Sturgis of Lon¬ 
don. Also another half-length portrait as having been owned by Mrs. Maria 
W. Tuley of Winchester, Virginia. 

Nothing else has been discovered about these portraits. 


(148) 


GILBERT STUART 


31 This portrait of Washington is in full uniform, stand¬ 
ing with hand on hip, the right hand resting on a 
telescope, landscape in background. 

It was purchased by M. Knoedler & Co., from Mrs. 
Beverly Betts of Jamaica, L. I., in whose family it had been 
since 1815. Sold to Mr. James Speyer of New York. 
Canvas, 46" X 57". 


(149) 


GILBERT STUART 


"5 ^ This portrait of Washington was purchased from Miss 
^ ** Jane Stuart, daughter of Gilbert Stuart, by Major 
John Francis Sanford. In 1867 Major Sanford married 
Charlotte Adams, niece of John Adams, Second President of 
the United States. His son died about twenty years ago, 
and left it to his son who died in 1912, and the latter left it 
to his sister and sole executrix, the Countess Sala. The pic¬ 
ture is now the property of the Detroit Athletic Club. In 
1913 Mr. George H. Story wrote that he had examined the 
painting and that it was an original by Gilbert Stuart. 

Three-quarter length, standing, right , hand thrust in 
front of vest, black velvet suit with lace jabot at neck and 
wrists. He holds his dress-sword in his left hand by his side. 

Canvas, 47" X 59 "* 


(150) 


GILBERT STUART 


GEORGE WASHINGTON 

The Athenaeum Portrait 


dsi) 


GILBERT STUART 


*5 ^ This portrait of Washington is the original painting 
from life, unfinished as to background, which is gray- 
brown, vignetted. The head is finished and the line of 
shoulders indicated. Painted from sittings given in 1796 to 
Gilbert Stuart in his studio in Germantown, when Washing¬ 
ton was 64 years of age. 

Canvas, 42 " X 34 yi". 

Owned by the Athenaeum Society and deposited in 
1876 with the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. 


(152) 















GILBERT STUART 


34 

1803. 


This portrait of Washington was painted by Stuart on 
the order of the American Philosophical Society in 
To quote from the records of the Society: 


“December 27th, 1799. Special meeting of American 
Philosophical Society, taking into consideration the loss of 
their fellow-member, a citizen distinguished by his virtues and 
his eminent services to his country. Resolved, That as a 
mark of their high respect and veneration for his character, 
it be recommended to the members to wear a black crape 
round the left arm as mourning for 30 days. Agreed that a 
portrait of George Washington be procured to be hung up 
in the Society Hall.” 

“April 15th, 1803. Washington’s portrait ordered by 
Stuart, December 27th, 1799, was presented for inspection, 
and referred to 

William Hamilton, 

Benjamin H. Latrobe, 

Williams S. Jacobs, 

to report on the merits previous to any order for its pur¬ 
chase.” 

“May 20th, 1803. Report of Committee on Washing¬ 
ton’s portrait read, and received. 

“ To the American Philosophical Society, the under¬ 
signed Committee, to whom was referred the consideration 
of the merits and value of a Portrait of General Washington 

painted by Gilbert Stuart, Esq., report 

(153) 


GILBERT STUART 


“ That the Portrait is equal if not superior to other copies 
of the bust of Mr. Stuart’s whole-length portrait of General 
Washington, made by himself, which your Committee have 
seen. The picture possesses the strong likeness and the 
spirit of the original, and it having been painted about 6 
years ago, the present state of the coloring proves that more 
than the usual attention has been paid to the goodness and 
durability of the colors which has been used. The commen¬ 
dation of your Committee can add nothing to the acknowl¬ 
edged merit of all Mr. Stuart’s performances, nor is it neces¬ 
sary to remark on the peculiarities in the drawing in this 
individual portrait, for they are those which the original 
possesses. 

* 

“The price of the portrait, as it includes the frame, is 
below that of other portraits of the same kind, by the amount 
of the value of the frame which may be about 16 Dollars. 
Upon the whole, as it is now impossible to obtain an original 
portrait of this illustrious member of the American Philo¬ 
sophical Society, your Committee are of the opinion, that it is 
not probable that a wish of the Society to possess his like¬ 
ness will ever be better fulfilled than by the acquisition of 
that now offered. B. Henry Latrobe, 

William Stephen Jacobs.” 

Philadelphia, May 3rd, 1803. 

Canvas, 25” X 30”. Bust to left, black coat, lace jabot, 
plain background. The portrait hangs in the Assembly 
Room of the Society, South 5th St., Philadelphia. 

(154) 


GILBERT STUART 


35 This portrait of Washington is now owned by the 

Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 


(Copy of presentation letter.) 

Philadelphia Club, November 5, 1903. 

To the President of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 

Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure of presenting through you to The His¬ 
torical Society of Pennsylvania a portrait of Washington, painted in oil by 
Gilbert Stuart. It originally belonged to Mr. Gilbert Robertson, who was 
the British consul in Philadelphia from the year 1818 until his death in 
1836. It then passed to his step-daughter, my mother, Juliana Matilda 
Gouverneur, wife of the late Francis Rawle Wharton, Esq.; from her to my 
sister, Alida Gouverneur Wharton, wife of the late John T. Montgomery, 
Esq,, and from her by bequest to me. In presenting this valuable portrait 
to your Society, I trust that it will be carefully preserved upon the walls of 
one of its fire-proof rooms. 

With the assurance of my high regard and best wishes for the continued 
prosperity of your esteemed institution, believe me, 

Yours very respectfully, 

Francis R. Wharton. 


The above portrait is mentioned in Mason’s “Life and 
Works of Gilbert Stuart,” page 106. 

It is framed with spandrels and gives the impression of 
an oval, but the canvas is rectangular, 29" X 24". 

Bust, to left, black coat, lace jabot, plain background of 
a gray-brown. 


(155) 


GILBERT STUART 


Note. —The drawing of the head, the features, and lines of the figure 
all show a strikingly similar effect to that of the Lansdowne full-length por¬ 
trait. The author is of the opinion that this portrait and No. 58 and No. 
64 were painted from No. 16; a comparison and study of the portraits will 
be found most interesting. 


1 


(156) 


\ 



WASHINGTON, No. 35 



GILBERT STUART 


36 This portrait of Washington was noted as painted for 
Joseph Thomas about 1796. It was acquired by the 
Hon. Robert Wain of Philadelphia (1265-1836), who left it to 
his son Lewis Wain, who willed a life interest in it to his 
brother William and his sister Phebe; after their deaths it 
was to become the property of the Library Company of Phil¬ 
adelphia. In 1882 it came to the Library Company and in 
1922 it was acquired by Mr. George Elkins of Philadelphia. 

Bust, to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
lace jabot, plain neutral tint background. 

Canvas, size 25" X 30". 


(157) 


GILBERT STUART 


^5 This portrait of Washington was painted in 1798 for 
William Rawle who was U. S. District Attorney for 
Pennsylvania under Washington. There was a tradition 
that in compliance with Mr. Rawle’s wishes, Washington 
gave Stuart three sittings for the picture. It is in any event 
a fine early copy. The picture descended to Dr. Herbert 
Norris of Philadelphia, and was sold by his widow to the 
artist Albert Rosenthal of Philadelphia, who sold it to Mr. 
Geo. S. Palmer of New London, Conn., who sold it to Mr. 
Howard Young of New York, who sold it to Mr. W. W. 
Carnill of Rydal, Pennsylvania, who is the present owner. 

Bust, to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth 
and lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, size 25" X 32". 


(158) 


GILBERT STUART 


O This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
James Yard of Philadelphia, who sold it to the dealer 
C. N. Robinson, who in turn sold it to Mr. Joseph Swift on 
April 23rd, 1853. On the death of Mr. Swift it passed into 
the possession of his daughter Mrs. Thomas Balch in 1882, 
and is still owned by her descendants. 

It is a most beautiful portrait, and would justify the re¬ 
port that the artist had had the benefit of study and sketch¬ 
ing from life in the finishing of the picture. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, lace jabot, plain 
background. 

Canvas, size about 25" X 30". 


(iS 9 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ Q This portrait of Washington is mentioned in “Mason’s 
Life of Stuart” as being painted for Jonathan Mason 
of Boston; it descended to Mrs. Wm. Appleton, and has 
recently been acquired by the Rhode Island School of Design, 
at Providence, R. I., in 1922. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type) black coat, full neck-cloth, 
lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, size about 25" X 30". 


(160) 


n 


GILBERT STUART 


Af\ This portrait of Washington was first owned by Wil¬ 
liam Allibone of Pennsylvania. At his death in 1821 
it passed into the hands of his wife, and remained in the 
family until purchased by Knoedler & Co., of New York, in 
1921, who sold it to Mrs. Thomas J. Emery of Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

Bust, head to left (Athenaeum), black coat, ruffled linen 
jabot, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, 24%" X 29*4". 


i 


(161) 


GILBERT STUART 


A A This portrait of Washington belonged to Dr. George 
C. Shattuck of Boston, who died in 1854. His own 
portrait was painted by Stuart between 1818 and 1820 and 
the family presume he purchased the Washington portrait 
from the artist at that time. It was inherited by his son who 
died in 1893, who left it to his daughter who died in 1918 
and from whose estate it was acquired by Knoedler & Co. 

Bust, head to left (Athenaeum), black coat, powdered 
hair, lace jabot, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, 25^" X 30 

The portrait is now owned by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, 
Jr., of New York. 


(162) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
the Willing-Thomson families of Philadelphia, who 
sold it through Robert M. Lindsay, the picture dealer at nth 
and Walnut Sts., to the “Brook” of New York. It now 
hang in their club house on 40th Street, New York. 

Bust, head to left (Athenaeum), black coat, powdered 
hair, lace jabot, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, about 25” X 3 °"- 


(163) 





GILBERT STUART 


A This portrait of Washington was painted for General 
** Hunt of New Jersey. It descended to his nephew 
Col. Wesley P. Hunt of Trenton, N. J. It is said that mem¬ 
bers of the Hunt family were wine merchants of Philadelphia 
and intimate friends of Stuart during his residence there. 
The portrait was sold by the widow of Col. Hunt in 1887 
to A. T. Stewart, the New York merchant. At the auction 
of his collection of paintings it was purchased by Mr. Willard 
P. Ward and presented to the University Club of New York 
by several members of the club. In 1855 Thomas Sully 
notes that he made a copy “from the original painting by 
Gilbert Stuart, owned by Col. Wesley P. Hunt of Trenton, 
N. J.” He considered it next in point of merit to the head 
in the Boston Athenaeum. Sully presented his copy to the 
Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia. (Hanging 
in their Assembly Hall.) 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, 24^" X 29^". 


(164) 



, NO. 




WASH IN GTON 


29 














GILBERT STUART 


44 This portrait of Washington was purchased in 1798 

from Gilbert Stuart by David Wagstaff (an English¬ 
man who came to this country after the Revolution, and was 
a great admirer of Washington). The picture hung for years 
in a house on 79th Street, which was the country seat of the 
Wagstaff family. It descended to Dr. Alfred Wagstaff whose 
father was born in the house in 1809. It is now owned by 
C. Du Bois Wagstaff of New York. The picture having de¬ 
scended in a direct line to the present time has been in the 
family for over one hundred years. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. 


(165) 


GILBERT STUART 


A This portrait of Washington was painted at Washing- 
ton, D. C., in 1803, for Daniel Carroll of Duddington 
Manor, D. C., and was purchased from the Carroll family by 
Mr. Havemeyer, who presented it to the Metropolitan 
Museum of New York in 1888. 

Canvas, 29^" X 24^". 

Black coat, ruffled jabot, with full neck-cloth, background 
grayish-brown. 


(166) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was brought by Gilbert 
Stuart from Philadelphia in 1803 when he came to 
Washington, D. C., to paint the portrait of President Jeffer¬ 
son. He sold the painting to Colonel John Tayloe of Mount 
Airy. Stuart painted portraits of Colonel Tayloe and of his 
wife, who was a daughter of Governor Benjamin Ogle of 
Maryland. 

The portrait of Washington was given to the Corcoran 
Art Gallery of Washington, D. C., in 1902, by Mrs. Benja¬ 
min Ogle Tayloe. 

Canvas, 29" X 24". Bust to left (Athenaeum). Black 
coat, ruffled linen jabot, with full neck-cloth, background 
plain. 


f 


(16;) 


GILBERT STUART 


A *1 This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
George Douglas (1793-1861). The painting was 
purchased previous to 1831, probably from Gilbert Stuart 
himself, as Mr. Douglas was an associate of artists and ac¬ 
quired a fondness for art when a young man. The portrait 
hung first in the George Douglas home at the corner of Park 
Place and Church Street, New York, and later in his new 
house on 14th Street, now known as the Salvation Army 
Headquarters. This house was loaned for years by the 
Douglas family for the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The 
portrait was purchased by Knoedler & Co., sold to a client, 
and has recently been acquired by the John Levy Galleries, 
New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), powdered hair, ruffled 
linen jabot, full neck-cloth. 

Painted on a wood panel, 2iJ^" X 27". 


(168) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was painted for Isaac 
McKim of Boston in 1819. It later became the prop¬ 
erty of Mrs. Elizabeth U. Coles, and was exhibited with her 
collection at the Metropolitan Museum from 1897 to 1904. 
After her death it was sold at the Anderson Galleries in 
March, 1917, to Mr. Thomas B. Clarke. In 1919 it was 
again sold in the collection of Mr. Clarke’s American por¬ 
traits by the American Art Association. The picture is now 
in the collection of Mr. Henry E. Huntington at San Gabriel, 
California. At the time the picture was sold by Mrs. Coles 
the spandrels in the framing gave the impression of an oval 
panel, but the painting is rectilinear, the wood panel being 
22" wide and 27" high. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, lace jabot. 


* 


(169) 


GILBERT STUART 


A Q This portrait was owned by Washington, and hung at 
~ ^ Mount Vernon till his death, when it came to his 
nephew George Steptoe Washington, who left it to his son 
William Temple Washington, who sent it to his cousin Col. 
Richard D. Cutts of Washington, D. C., with instructions to 
sell it. It was purchased by the Hon. John V. L. Pruyn, 
then a member of Congress from Albany, N. Y. It is now 
owned by his son-in-law William Gorham Rice, Esq., of 
Albany, New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum). 


(170) 


GILBERT STUART 


50 This portrait of Washington was owned by Mr. Blight 
of Philadelphia. He was an India trader, and took 
his portrait with him on a voyage to Canton, China, about 
the close of the eighteenth century. Shortly after 1800 a 
number of portraits of Washington painted on glass were 
brought out from China and offered for sale in Philadelphia, 
till Stuart, through the aid of Horace Binney, then a young 
lawyer, put an injunction on the sale. 

This picture still has Mr. Blight’s card attached to the 
back of the frame. It is now owned by Lambert Cadwalader, 
Esq., of Philadelphia. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type). 

(The painting is noted in “ Mason’s Life of Gilbert 
Stuart.”) 




I 


(171) 


GILBERT STUART 


This painting of Washington is recorded in “Mason’s 
Life of Gilbert Stuart” and noted on the artist’s list of 
April 20th, 1795, as painted for “John Craig, Esq.” After 
the death of Judge Craig it came into the possession of his 
daughter Jane Margaret Craig, who married Nicholas Biddle 
in 1811. The picture remained in the Biddle family for many 
years. In 1916 it was acquired by Mr. Herbert L. Pratt of 
New York. 

Canvas, 25” X 30”. 

Bust, showing the left side of face, black coat, lace jabot. 


(172) 



WASHINGTON, No. 31 


n 









GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was painted by Gilbert 
Stuart on the order of Henry Kuhl of Philadelphia, 
who was associated with art matters and was one of the 
founders in 1805 of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine 
Arts. The picture remained in the possession of descend¬ 
ants of his family until 1922, when it was sold by Dr. H. K. 
Dillard, Jr., of Philadelphia. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), full neck-cloth, with linen 
ruffled jabot, plain-tint background, showing the oval in 
which the painting was framed for many years. 


(173) 


GILBERT STUART 


t ^ This portrait of Washington is recorded in the “Life 
and Works of Gilbert Stuart,” by George C. Mason, 
as having hung for many years in the Madison mansion. It 
was later acquired by Edward Coles who was private secre¬ 
tary to President Madison from i8ioto 1816; he removed to 
Philadelphia in 1833 and died there in 1868. The portrait 
descended to his daughter, Miss Mary Coles of Philadelphia. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. 


(174) 


GILBERT STUART 


54 This portrait of Washington was painted for Governor 
George Gibbs of Rhode Island, between 1810 and 
1815. It was one of a set of portraits of the first five Presi¬ 
dents of the United States. After the death of Governor 
Gibbs it was purchased by T. Jefferson Coolidge of Boston, 
and bequeathed by him to his grandson T. Jefferson Cool¬ 
idge 3rd. 

Painted on wood panel, 22" X 26". 

Bust, black coat, lace jabot (Athenaeum type). 


t 


(i75) 


GILBERT STUART 


gj* gj This portrait of Washington was painted by Gilbert 
Stuart at the request of Jonathan Mason for Cumber¬ 
land Williams, at whose death it was purchased by Thomas 
H. Perkins, Jr., of Boston. His son Augustus Thorndike 
Perkins of Boston owned the picture in 1881 ; it is now 
owned by his daughter Mrs. Wm. Austin Wadsworth. 

Bust to left, Athenaeum type, black coat, powdered 
hair, full neck-cloth, lace jabot. 

Painted on a wood panel, 25^" X 21 

Picture now on dsposit at the Boston Museum of Fine 


Arts. 


(176) 


GILBERT STUART 


Cf /Z This portrait of Washington was the property of the 
artist Charles Willson Peale. It was sold in the 
auction of the Peale Gallery in 1854 to Thomas J. Bryan of 
New York. The Bryan collection is now deposited with the 
New York Historical Society. 

Canvas, 24 y 2 ” X 30*^". 

Bust, black coat, lace jabot; background brown and red, 
with base of column to right. 


(i77) 


I 


GILBERT STUART 


This painting of Washington was first owned by 
. J. Serb m de Franca, Esqr., of Devonshire Place, 
London. It was engraved by William Nutter in stipple, and 
published January 15th, 1798, in London. 

It was purchased directly from the descendants of the 
De Franca family in 1892 by Charles Henry Hart, who sold 
it to the Ehrich Gallery. 

In 1917 it was owned by the Ehrich Gallery of New 
York ; it was sold by them to the late Henry P. Davison of 
New York City. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth 
with lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, size 29" X 24". 


(178) 



WASHINGTON, No. 58 












GILBERT STUART 


gf Q This portrait of Washington was owned for many 
years by Bayard Taylor (1825-1878), the author, 
writer, and traveler. 

At the sale of the pictures belonging to his estate it was 
acquired by Mr. Oscar S. Straus of New York. 

Bust to left, black coat, powdered hair, full neck-cloth 
with lace jabot. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 


Note. —The drawing of the head, the features and shadows show a 
strikingly similar effect to that of the Lansdowne portrait. (See note under 
No. 36.) 


( i79) 


GILBERT STUART 


gJd This portrait of Washington was owned for years in 
the Willing family of Philadelphia. In 1841 it was 
sold by Thomas M. Willing to Joshua Bates of Boston, an 
ancestor of Lady Monk Bretton. The picture is still in the 
possession of Lord Monk Bretton in England. 

Canvas about 25" X 30". 

Bust, black coat, with marble column and a red back¬ 
ground. 


(180) 


GILBERT STUART 


/lf\ This portrait of Washington was painted for Solomon 
Etting of Baltimore. In 1878 it was presented to the 
Maryland Historical Society by Miss Richsa Etting. The 
picture was painted by Stuart on an order, and Miss Etting 
visited the artist’s studio a number of times when he was 
working on it. The portrait now hangs in the library of the 
Society in Baltimore. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(181) 


GILBERT STUART 


61 


This portrait of Washington is supposed to be the last 
replica painted by Gilbert Stuart, according to the re¬ 
ceipt for the painting which is dated “12 of Aug., 1825.” It 
was painted on the order of Robert Gilmor of Baltimore, 
Maryland. It was purchased in 1872 by Mrs. Dahlgren of 
Washington, D. C. 

The picture is noted in “ Original Portraits of Washing¬ 
ton,” by Elizabeth Bryant Johnston. Pub. by Osgood & Co., 
1882. 

Bust to left. (Athenaeum.) Black coat, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, about 25” X 30". 


(182) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington is noted in the “Life and 
Works of Gilbert Stuart, by Geo. C. Mason,” as 
being owned by Hon. Peter McCall, a distinguished Phila¬ 
delphia lawyer. The portrait was said to have been painted 
for his uncle Mr. James Gibson. 

The picture is now owned by the daughters of Hon. 
Peter McCall, Miss G. K. McCall and Mrs. Keating of 
Wawa, Del. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. 

Canvas, about 24" X 29”. 


(183) 


GILBERT STUART 

This portrait of Washington was sold by Robert M. 



Lindsay, the Philadelphia picture-dealer, through 
Charles Henry Hart to Charles W. Henry of Chestnut Hill, 
Philadelphia. It is now owned by his widow, Mrs. Charles 
W. Henry. 

Bust to left. (Athenaeum.) Black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(184) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was purchased by James 
Earle the Philadelphia picture-dealer about 1839 from 
the widow of Count Noel who ordered the painting from 
Gilbert Stuart about 1799. It was then owned by Mr. Insley 
of Philadelphia, and later by Mr. Geo. Horworth of Brook¬ 
lyn; from him it came to the hands of the Warner family 
of Constitution Island. It was presented by Miss Anne 
Warner to the Corps of Cadets, West Point, New York. It 
is thought to have been painted from the Lansdowne por¬ 
trait which it greatly resembles. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 

Bust to left, linen ruffled jabot, plain background. 

(Athenaeum type.) 


(185) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned for many 
years by Mr. William H. Appleton of New York. It 
is painted on a wood-panel, and has on the back the original 
receipt in the handwriting of Gilbert Stuart: 


“Boston, 9th Sept., 1820. 

Received of Charles Brown, Five hundred dollars for a 
portrait of George Washington. 

Gt. Stuart.” 


Below is marked: 


“ Original, purchased from Mr. Brown by Z. Collins Lee 
at Boston, Aug. 4th, 1844.” 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), plain background. 

Owned by Mrs. Warren Delano (nee Walters) of New 
York. 


086 ) 



WASHINGTON, No. 36 









GILBERT STUART 


66 This portrait of Washington was presented by the 
citizens of Boston to the actor James Wallack. After 
his death it came into the possession of his son Lester Wal¬ 
lack, who died in 1888. At the sale of his possessions it was 
acquired by Mr. Appleton of New York, and it is now owned 
by his son Mr. Francis R. Appleton. 

Bust to left, black coat, full neck-cloth, plain background. 

(Athenaeum type.) 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(187) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned for many 
years by the Aspinwall family of New York; from 
them it came into the possession of Mr. James W. Ellsworth 
of New York City, and is now owned by Knoedler & Co., 
New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30 ". 


(188) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was for many years in 
China; it was brought to London about 1850 and 
taken to America by a Boston trader. It was sold by a 
picture dealer in that city to Howard Young of New York, 
who has had the painting cleaned. It is recorded that a 
nephew of Stuart’s, a “young Mr. Newton then living in 
Liverpoole commissioned his uncle to paint a portrait or 
replica of Washington to be used in decorating pottery.” 
This picture probably found its way east and was the one 
copied by the Chinese artists. 

Bust, head to left, black coat, lace jabot, red curtain and 
base of marble column to left, red curtain in background. 

Canvas, 30" X 25^". 


Note. —The head is placed high on the canvas and there is a resemb¬ 
lance to the picture owned by William D. Lewis at the Pennsylvania Academy 
of Fine Arts, No. 30. 


( 189) 


GILBERT STUART 


/IQk This portrait of Washington is in the University Club 
^ of Richmond, Virginia. On page 103 of Elizabeth 
Bryant Johnston’s “Original Portraits of Washington/’ she 
gives the Virginia State Library the credit of owning this 
canvas presented to the State by Mr. Thomas Williamson of 
Norfolk, Virginia. 

This portrait was loaned to the library, and after hang¬ 
ing there for some years was removed to the Club as above 
noted. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(190) 


GILBERT STUART 


*"7 f\ This portrait of Washington belonged to the Pinckney 
family of South Carolina, and it is claimed to have 
been presented by Washington to Charles Coatesworth 
Pinckney. It was purchased about 1872 by Mrs. Horace 
Gray of Boston. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth. 
Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(191) 


GILBERT STUART 


*7 This portrait of Washington is noted in Mason’s “ Life 
of Stuart” as originally owned by Mr. P. A. Davis; it 
was acquired by Mr. Joseph Swift, who presented it to the 
Philadelphia Club. 

Canvas, 25” X 30 ". 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, lace jabot, 
plain gray-green neutral background. 


Note.—P ainting shows effect of cleaning and restoration. 


( 192) 



WASHINGTON, No. 37 













GILBERT STUART 


*7 ^ This portrait of Washington was owned by John 
Brown (1757-1837), who was United States Senator 
from the State of Kentucky during Washington’s adminis¬ 
tration. 

It descended into the Parker family of Carlisle, Pennsyl¬ 
vania ; from them it was purchased by a Philadelphia firm of 
picture dealers, and sold in 1906 to Buckley & Co., of New 
York, who purchased it on the order of a London client. 
The picture is now owned in England. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum). 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(193) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was owned originally by 
^ General William McDonald of Baltimore. It was 


offered for sale by the McDonald heirs in Boston and pur¬ 
chased by the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop of Boston, and is 
deposited with the Massachusetts Historical Society of 
Boston. 

Canvas, 24" X 28^". 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain background. 


(194) 


GILBERT STUART 


A This portrait of Washington was originally painted for 
Robert Barry of Baltimore, Maryland. Later it came 
into the possession of Lloyd Nicholas Rogers, of David Hill, 
Maryland, and from him it descended to his son Edmund 
Law Rogers of Baltimore. After his death it was inherited 
by his daughter who married Dr. Kirby Flower Smith, and 
later Dr. Wilfred P. Mustard of Baltimore, Md. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(195) 


GILBERT STUART 


EJ This portrait of Washington was owned by Israel 
Kinsman of Philadelphia about 1817, and is mentioned 
in the inventory of his estate in 1835 as “ Stuart-Washington.” 
It was sold by his grandson Edgar Kinsman in 1922 to J. M. 
McClees of Philadelphia, who sold it to John H. Earley of 
Germantown. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 

Bust, black coat, linen ruffled jabot, plain background. 
(Athenaeum type.) 


(196) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was acquired in 1885 by 
Mr. William Thompson Walters of Baltimore from 
Mr. S. P. Avery, the New York art dealer, recently deceased. 

It has hung for years in the “Walters Gallery” of Balti¬ 
more, and is now owned by the son, Mr. H. Walters of New 
York City. 

Bust to left, black coat, full neck-cloth and jabot, plain 
background. (Athenaeum type.) 


t 


(197) 



GILBERT STUART 


*7*7 This portrait of Washington was painted for William 
Rodman, who was born in 1757 and died in 1824; he 
was closely identified with the Washington administration. 
The picture was inherited by his daughter Elizabeth, who 
married Joseph Olden, M. D. It descended to their daughter 
Mary C., who married Alexander Murray Mcllvain in 1842. 
Her daughter, Mary Shippen, married Charles Magil Spencer, 
and in turn inherited the portrait. She was the mother of 
the present owner. Mrs. H. Evan Taylor of Philadelphia (nee 
Katherine Murray Spencer), who also owns Stuart’s portrait 
of Chief Justice Shippen. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, ruffled linen jabot. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 


(198) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned by S. M. 

Shoemaker of Baltimore, Md. It was painted in 1798 
for Moor Falls of Baltimore. 

Mr. Shoemaker inherited the picture from his mother, 
who was the daughter of Mr. Falls. Mr. Samuel Shoemaker 
Murray of Baltimore states that the picture has disappeared, 
presumably stolen, from the house of some member of his 
family. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth. 


(199) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was discovered among 
some old paintings in a Boston antique shop. Later 
it was acquired by Dr. George Reuling of Baltimore, who in 
1900 offered it for sale at Anderson’s Auction Rooms in New 
York. In 1905 it was again offered there for sale with the 
statement that it had been owned by General Joseph Ellicott, 
who was a friend of Washington. It was purchased by Louis 
A. Ehrich who sold it about 1906 to Dr. Henry Van Dyke of 
Princeton, N. J. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), lace jabot, full neck¬ 
cloth, plain background. 


(200) 



WASHINGTON. No. 39 













GILBERT STUART 


80 This portrait of Washington has all the characteristics 
of Stuart’s work; it is vigorous in drawing with fine 
brilliant color. Nothing can be learned as to its history from 
the present owners except that it has been in their family for 
over fifty years, having been purchased at a sale in Philadel¬ 
phia by Colonel Alexander Biddle of Chestnut Hill, Philadel¬ 
phia, and it is now owned by his estate. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain tint background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(201) 


GILBERT STUART 


81 


This portrait of Washington was owned by Governor 
Latrobe and is still in the possession of some members 
of his family. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth and jabot. 


Note.— The record of this picture has been furnished the author, who 
has not had the opportunity of examining the painting. 


(202) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington is reported by Knoedler 
and Co. of New York as being in France. It is said 
to be a fine portrait of the Athenaeum type, and is owned by 
Mr. Robert S. Clark in Paris. 

Note. —The record of the picture has been furnished the author, who 
has not the opportunity of examining the painting. 


S 


( 203 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q ^ This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
Joseph Shippen and came from him to Edward Ship- 
pen the distinguished lawyer who lived for many years on 
Walnut Street, Philadelphia. The picture was said to have 
been the property of Mrs. James Gibson, and after the death 
of Mr. Edward Shippen it was sold by a dealer in New York 
about 1905. 


Note.— The picture is noted in “ Mason’s Life of Stuart,” page 113. 

Bust, head to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full 
neck-cloth and lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(204) 


GILBERT STUART 


84 This painting of Washington is recorded in “Mason’s 
Life of Gilbert Stuart,” as noted on his list of April 
20th, 1795, °f “gentlemen who are to have copies of the por¬ 
trait of the President.” It was painted for Col. Richard 
Kidder Meade, of Nansemond Co., Virginia, and inherited 
from his father by Bishop Wm. Kidder Meade of Alexandria. 
From the relatives of Bishop Meade it was acquired in 1888 
by Mr. W. K. Browne of Charleston, S. C., and Jamaica 
Plain, Mass.; the price paid ($800) being considered a very 
large sum for a Stuart-Washington. In 1915 it was acquired 
by Mr. Ross H. Maynard of Boston from Mr. Browne. Mr. 
Maynard sold the picture in a New York auction room 
recently. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), blue-black coat, lace 
jabot, full neck cloth, background of warm, dark gray. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 


(205) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q g* This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
General John Chestnut of South Carolina. He him¬ 
self sat to Stuart in 1797-98 while on a visit to Philadelphia, 
and purchased the Washington portrait about the same time 
from the artist’s studio. In 1876 it was purchased by the 
Library Committee for the U. S. Capitol at Washington, 
D. C., from W. W. Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Art 
Gallery. Documents establishing its authenticity were given 
with the picture. It portrays Washington as rather an older 
man than is represented in the “Athenaeum Head.” It was 
painted with the consent of Washington, and tradition says 
Washington probably gave a sitting for the finishing of the 
picture; if so this would account for his looking older, as he 
aged rapidly during his last executive term. 

The painting now hangs in the Senate corridor. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, plain back¬ 
ground. 


(206) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
Edward Penington of Philadelphia, who was one of 
the founders in 1805 of the Pennsylvania Academy of the 
Fine Arts. In 1886 it was purchased by the Library Com¬ 
mittee for the U. S. Capitol, Washington, D. C., from Mrs. 
C. W. Harris, then residing in Washington, D. C. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth and 
jabot, plain gray-brown background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


/ 


(207) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q ^ This portrait of Washington was for years in the col- 
^ lection of pictures owned by Mr. Paul Beck, warden 
of the port of Philadelphia. At his death in 1844 he be¬ 
queathed this picture to the Pennsylvania Academy of the 
Fine Arts. It was badly scorched in a fire there in 1845, an d 
has consequently suffered in restoration. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth and jabot. 

Canvas, 25 " X 30". 


(208) 


GILBERT STUART 


88 P ortra ^ Washington was originally the prop¬ 

erty of General (afterwards Governor) James Wood 
of Dinwiddie Co., Virginia. It was owned in turn by his 
niece Elizabeth Wood, who gave it to her daughter Sarah in 
1832. The picture was buried in the cellar of a cotton ware¬ 
house in Virginia during the Civil War. The portrait has 
descended to a grandson, Mr. F. S. Tainter, of New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, plain background. 


(209) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q Q This portrait of Washington was originally owned 
by the Ridout or Meyick families of Annapolis, 
Maryland. It was sold to the Baltimore painter, Thomas C. 
Corner, who sold it to Mrs. H. Irvine Keyser of Baltimore, 
Maryland. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type). 


Note. —The author has not been able to see the portrait, and notes it 
from information furnished by a New York expert who examined it some 
years ago. 


(210) 



WASHINGTON, NO. 40 




















































GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
Col. Henry Rutgers, who served in the American 
Revolution under General Washington. The picture was 
later owned by J. Schuyler Crosby, U. S. Consul at Florence 
and taken to Italy. It is now owned by Mrs. Crosby of 
Albany, New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth and jabot, plain background. 


(211) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q *| This portrait of Washington was originally owned by 
John Jacobs of Norristown, Penna. It is said to have 
been presented to a member of the Jacobs family for supplies 
furnished Washington’s troops during the Revolution. 

It descended to Mrs. George W. Jacobs, Jr., who sold it 
to J. I. McGurk of New York, who sold it to G. M. Heck- 
scher, Esq. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, lace jabot, 
plain background. 

Painted on wood panel. 


(212) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned by the Carter 
family of Virginia; it was purchased from them by the 
late Faris C. Pitt, of Baltimore, Md., who sold it to Albert 
Rosenthal, the Philadelphia artist, who in turn sold it to Mr. 
George F. Baker through Charles Henry Hart. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, lace jabot, plain 
background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


t 


(213) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q ^ This portrait of Washington was owned by the 
^ late Dr. Charles J. Stille (1819-1899), the eminent 
historian, and for years an officer of the Historical So¬ 
ciety of Pennsylvania. 

It is now owned by Mrs. Ferree Brinton of Philadelphia. 

Bust to left, black coat, full neck-cloth, lace jabot. 


Note. —This picture shows every evidence of having been painted from 
the full-length “tea-pot” type, and the features, arrangement of the hair 
and other details resemble these pictures much more closely than the “ Athe¬ 
naeum Head.” 

The picture is painted on canvas, 24" X 29", and is framed with an 
oval mat. 


(214) 


GILBERT STUART 


94 This portrait of Washington was bequeathed to the 

New York Chamber of Commerce in 1908 by Morris 
K. Jessup, Esq., of New York. He acquired it in 1902 from 
F. L. Goodall, 57 Pall Mall, London. On the occasion of the 
presentation of the portrait to the Chamber of Commerce, 
the presentation speech was made by the Hon. Joseph H. 
Choate. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(215) 


GILBERT STUART 


Q ^ This portrait of Washington was originally painted for 
Counsellor Dunn, an Irish gentleman who came to 
this country about the time Stuart painted the Washington 
portraits. His own portrait was painted by Stuart three 
times. On his return to England he took his portrait of 
Washington with him where it remained until 1909 when it 
was purchased from his descendants and brought back to 
America. It was acquired by the late C. L. F. Robinson of 
Hartford, Conn. The picture is now the property of Mrs. 
Robinson. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat. 

Canvas, size 2 5" x 30". 


(216) 


GILBERT STUART 


96 This portrait of Washington was originally painted for 
Colonel Lewis Sanders, who lived near Lexington, 
Kentucky, in the early part of the 19th century. Colonel 
Sanders gave the picture to Major William Smith Dallam. 
The exact date of this gift is not known, but it was probably 
in 1819 or 1820. Major Dallam gave the portrait to his 
eldest daughter, Miss Frances Paca Dallam, who later mar¬ 
ried Dr. Robert Peter. On the death of Mrs. Peter in 1907, 
the painting was sold by Miss Johanna Peter (one of the 
heirs) to J. I. McGurk of New York, who sold it in 1917 to 
Albert H. Wiggin, Esq. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), painted on a wood panel. 


(217) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington has been known for 
many years as the “Allentown portrait.” It was pur¬ 
chased by the present owner in 1902 from W. J. Fisher, an 
art dealer in Washington, D. C. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type). 

Owned by Mr. Ralph King, Cleveland, Ohio. 


Note.— In “ Mason’s Life of Stuart,” mention is made of a portrait 
owned by William Buehler of Harrisburg, Penna., which had been in his 
family for more than fifty years. It was originally the property of Samuel 
D. Frank, who was a member of the bar, residing at Reading, Berks Co., 
Pa., and who removed to Harrisburg about 1825. The author has been in¬ 
formed by descendants of the Buehler family that their picture was called the 
“ Allentown Portrait,” and that it had been sold by them to a dealer who 
had re-sold it to a gentleman living in the West. 


(218) 



WASH I N GTO N 


NO. 41 





GILBERT STUART 


98 This portrait of Washington was owned in Philadel¬ 
phia for many years; it is said to have been for some 
time in the possession of Marshal Grouchy who was a friend 
of Joseph Bonaparte. It was later sold in an auction with 
considerable property belonging to the family of Joseph 
Ingersoll; it was acquired by Frank E. Marshall, a dealer 
and collector of Philadelphia, and was purchased from his 
estate by Albert Rosenthal of Philadelphia. 

Painted on a wood panel, 23 yi" X 28". 

Bust, black coat, lace jabot, plain background. 


(219) 


GILBERT STUART 


QQ This portrait of Washington was purchased by Mr. 

Frank Wyman from a dealer in Baltimore, Maryland, 
about 1850. It was intimated that it was necessary for the 
owner to part with the picture, and it was impossible to learn 
any further details. It is now owned by Mr. Wyman of St. 
Louis, Missouri. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


Note. —The author being unable to see the portrait notes it from in¬ 
formation furnished him. 


§ 


( 220 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


1 AO This portrait of Washington is owned by Senator 
William A. Clark of New York, who purchased 
the painting from Miss Mary Ellen Ford and Charles Henry 
Hart. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth, lace jabot, plain background. 

Canvas, about 25" X 30". 


(221) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was purchased of 
Gilbert Stuart by George Beck of Boston for Mary 
Alexander Parker of Lexington, Kentucky, and was pur¬ 
chased at the sale of Miss Parker’s effects by William Rich¬ 
ardson, then residing in Lexington, and by him brought to 
Louisville, Ky. In 1904 Miss Carrie Richardson of Louis¬ 
ville presented it through her sister-in-law, Mrs. Tobias Rich¬ 
ardson of New Orleans, to the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Asso¬ 
ciation and it is now hanging at Mount Vernon on the 
Potomac, Fairfax Co., Virginia. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, plain background. 
Canvas, about 2 5" X 30"- 




(222) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was painted by Stuart 
in 1810 for the Hon. Josiah Ouincy, mayor of the 
City of Boston. He visited Stuart’s studio in Essex Street 
on several occasions, and is said to have purchased this por¬ 
trait during one of his calls. It is described as a rather 
highly-finished replica of the Athenaeum portrait. It is said 
to have hung for years in the family homestead at Quincy, 
Mass. Later it was sold by Josiah Quincy of Boston, grand¬ 
son of the original owner, to George Nixon Black of Boston. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. 



(223) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington suggests the bust of 
the full-length “tea-pot” type portrait. It is un¬ 
finished as to coat and jabot, and is thought to have been a 
study for the full-length pictures. 

It is now owned by Mr. Walter Jennings of New York, 
who acquired it from the Ehrich Galleries, New York. 

Bust to left, plain background vignetted. 



(224) 


GILBERT STUART 


104 This 

Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4. 

A. F. and A. M. 

Canvas, 29^" X 24^". 

Painting is in Fredericksburg, Va. It has been pro¬ 
nounced genuine by a number of judges of Stuart’s work, 
but has never been seen by the author. 

The Masonic Lodge in Fredericksburg has no records 
as to the history of the painting, as all the papers were de¬ 
stroyed during the Civil War. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type). 


portrait of Washington is owned by the 






( 225) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned for years 
by the family of Mrs. Kershaw. It was purchased 
by William Macbeth of New York from Mrs. Kershaw on 
the advice of Mr. Charles Henry Hart. It was acquired by 
Mr. Zenas Crane of Pittsfield, Mass. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), painted on a wood panel 
24" X 30". 



* 


(226) 



WASHINGTON. NO. 47 











GILBERT STUART 



This portrait of Washington was painted for Gov. 
James Patton Preston who was born at Smithfield, 


Virginia, in 1770, and died there in 1843. 

His own portrait (mentioned in “ Mason’s Life and 


Works of Gilbert Stuart”) and this one of George Washing¬ 


ton were painted during the period he was state senator 
from Virginia. 

The portrait of Washington has descended in the fami¬ 


lies of the Prestons and Browns, which were closely united. 


It is now owned by Mrs. Francis J. Hutchinson of Syracuse, 
New York. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth with linen ruffled jabot. 

Canvas, size about 25" X 30”, 

Note. —The author has not seen the painting and is noting it for record 
from photographs and information furnished him by the owner. 


( 227) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was painted for the 
grandfather of General George G. Meade ; it after¬ 
wards came into the possession of John Wolfe of New York, 
and was sold at the Wolfe sale on Dec. 22nd, 1863, to J. W. 
Southmayo, who sold it to John P. Beaumont. At the death 
of Mr. Beaumont it came into the possession of someone 

now unknown who sold it to Doll & Richards of Boston, who 

) 

in turn sold it to the family who are the present owners, 
living in Boston. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth and jabot. Red curtain draped back at left, showing 
blue sky and clouds. 

Canvas, size 28^" X 23^". 



(228) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned for years 
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It was purchased by 
Doll & Richards of Boston who sold it to Mrs. Pickman ; it 
is now the property of her son, Mr. Dudley Pickman of 
Boston. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth. Painted on a wood panel, size 25^" X 21 y£". 



% 


S 


(229) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned by Mr. 
Joseph Wright of Philadelphia, who acquired it 
through Albert Rosenthal from a sale held in Philadelphia 
about twenty-five years ago. 

It is now owned by Mr. W. D. Craig Wright of Phila¬ 
delphia. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), plain background of an 
umber shade. 

Canvas, size about 2 5" X 30". 



(230) 



WASHINGTON, No. 68 




































GILBERT STUART 


This picture of Washington is owned by Mr. Ed¬ 
ward W. Moore of Cleveland, Ohio, who pur¬ 
chased it some years ago from Dr. George Reuling of Balti¬ 
more, Maryland. 

Note.—T he author has not seen the portrait and is noting it for record 
from information furnished him. 



(231) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned by 
Jay Chapman of New York City, who inherited it 
from his father’s family in Boston. 

Mr. Chapman has presented the portrait to the Cathe¬ 
dral, Washington, D. C. It is now deposited at the Corcoran 
Art Gallery, Washington, D. C. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), plain background; the 
lower corners of the picture show the line of an oval. 

Canvas, 25" X 30". 




(232) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ This portrait of Washington was owned by Mrs. 
Walter Damrosch of New York, and was sold to a 
member of the Blaine family of Chicago. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum), black coat, full neck-cloth, 
plain background. 

Canvas, size about 25" X 30". 


\ 


(233) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was purchased many 
years ago by Mr. Joseph Pulitzer of New York, 
editor of the New York “ World.” It is now in the posses¬ 
sion of his widow. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 


cloth. 


Canvas, size about 25 " X 30" 


(234) 


4 


GILBERT STUART 


114 This portrait of Washington is in the Virginia 
State Library, Richmond, Va. On page 103 of 
Elizabeth Bryant Johnston’s “Original Portraits of Washing¬ 
ton,” she says it was painted on an order given the artist by 
Samuel Myers, and was later purchased by the State. 

(No correspondence or documents authenticating this 
history can be found by the Virginia State Library.) 

Bust to left (Athenaeum). 


(235) 


GILBERT STUART 


•| | r This portrait of Washington (Athenaeum type) was 
owned by the late John H. Converse of Philadel¬ 
phia. It is now the property of Mrs. John W. Converse of 
Rosemont, Pa. 


Note. —The owner being in England, the author was not able to see 
the picture before the book went to press. The painting is said to be a fine 
one. 







( 236) 


GILBERT STUART 


116 P ortra * t Washington is said to have been 

owned for many years by Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, the 
well-known Philadelphia physician and author of “The Youth 
of Washington.” It descended to his son the late Dr. J. K. 
Mitchell, and is now owned by his widow. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type). 


Note. —The author notes the painting from description, as, at the time 
of publication, it was impossible to see the picture. 


( 237 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


I 1 7 This portrait of Washington is said to have hung 
in the library of Washington Irving for many years 
at his home “ Sunnyside,” on the Hudson. It was later ac¬ 
quired by Dr. J. Ackerman Coles of Scotch Plains, Union 
Co., N. J., and was presented by him to the Valley Forge 
Historical Society of Valley Forge, Penna. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum). 


Note.—T he author has not had an opportunity to examine this picture 
and notes it from description furnished him. 


(238) 


GILBERT STUART 


1 1 Q This portrait of Washington is recorded as being 
owned by Mr. Frederick Brooks of Boston. The 
author has been unable to see the picture and notes it from 
description furnished him. 

(Athenaeum type.) 


(239) 


GILBERT STUART 


1 1 Q This portrait of Washington is recorded from infor¬ 
mation furnished the author by the late Charles 
Henry Hart. Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, 
full neck-cloth. It was then in the possession of Mrs. More 
of North Carolina. 


(240) 



WASH I N GTON 


NO 


103 










GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was owned by Mrs. 
Joseph Drexel of Philadelphia; after her death it 
was acquired by Mrs. Seaton Henry of “Penryn,” near 
Torresdale, Penna. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum). 

Note.— The owner being abroad for an indefinite period, and the paint¬ 
ing not being accessible to the author, it has been noted from description. 
It is said to have been sold to Mrs. Drexel by Chas. Henry Hart, and is a 
fine portrait. 



♦ 


(241 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington is owned by Mrs. 
John Huntington of Cleveland, Ohio. 

Note.— The author has not seen the portrait and has noted it from de¬ 
scription furnished him, as the owner was in Europe at the time the book 
was published. 



( 242 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


This portrait of Washington was originally the 
property of David Hoye of Carlisle, Cumberland 
Co., Penna. The portrait at his death was left to his son 
John Hoye, who had been active in politics and had been 
state senator from 1790 to 1794; he died intestate in 1820 
and at the administrator’s sale the picture was purchased by 
the Hon. John Hoye Ewing. 

Bust to left, Athenaeum type, black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth and jabot. 



(243) 


GILBERT STUART 


"g fS ^5 This portrait of Washington is recorded from infor- 
** mation furnished the author by the late Charles 
Henry Hart. It is said to be the bust to the left (Athe¬ 
naeum type), black coat, full neck-cloth, and was in the pos¬ 
session of Mr. Robert J. Fisher of York, Pennsylvania. 


Note. —The portrait of Washington in the Union League Club House, 
Philadelphia, is a copy by Rembrandt Peale from the original by Gilbert 
Stuart in the Boston Museum. The copy is the same size as the original 
painting. 

Another copy by Rembrandt Peale, of Stuart’s Athenaeum portrait, is 
owned by John Hill Morgan, Esq., of Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Note. —An excellent copy of Stuart’s Athenaeum portrait was made by 
his daughter, Miss Jane Stuart. This painting was sold by the Ehrich Gal¬ 
leries of New York to Mrs. Ogden Reid, who presented it to the Women’s 
University Club of New York City. 


( 244) 


GILBERT STUART 


^ A This portrait of Washington was originally the 
property of Henry N. Cook of Philadelphia. Mr. 
Cook was a well-known gold-beater of the city and a great 
admirer of President Washington, and secured the portrait 
from Virginia. It was purchased by Miss Mary C. Smith of 
Keyport, New Jersey, at the sale of the estate of her uncle, 
Henry N. Cook. 

Bust to left (Athenaeum type), black coat, full neck¬ 
cloth with cambric-frill jabot, background a warm reddish 
tone instead of the more usual gray tint. 

Oval, canvas. 


(245) 












GILBERT STUART 


APPENDIX 

Letter written to Benjamin West by Gilbert Stuart 

London, England. 

Monday Evening No 30 Grace Street 

Mr. West. 

Sir 

The Benevolence of your Disposition encourageth me, 
while my necesity urgeth me to write you on so Disagreable 
a subject. I hope I have not offended by taking this liberty 
my poverty and ignorance are my only excuse Let me beg 
that I may not forfeit your good will Which to me is so de¬ 
sirable. Pity me Good Sir I’ve just arrived at the age of 21, 
an age when most young men have done something worthy 
of notice & find myself ignorant without Business or Friends, 
without the necessarys of life so far that for some time I have 
been reduced to one miserable meal a day & frequently not 
even that, destitute of the means of acquiring knowledge, my 
hopes from home Blasted & incapable of returning thither, 
pitching head long into misery. I have this only hope I pray 
that it may not be too great (to live & learn without being a 

(247) 


GILBERT STUART 


Burden. Should Mr West in his abundant kindness think of 
ought for me I shall esteem it an obligation which shall find 
me forever with gratitude with the greatest Humility 

Sir yours at Comd. 

G. C. Stuart. 

Copy of original letter in the New York Historical So¬ 
ciety furnished by Alexander J. Wall. 

Since the foregoing pages went to press, the above in¬ 
teresting letter was brought most unexpectedly to my atten¬ 
tion. It has such a distinct bearing upon the subject under 
discussion, and casts such an interesting side-light upon a 
certain period of Gilbert Stuart’s life, and gives withal such 
an intimate glimpse into the young artist’s circumstances at 
the time of writing, that I feel it only right to share it with 
my readers. 

The Author. 


(248) 


GILBERT STUART 


Likenesses of Gilbert Stuart 

T HERE are quite a number of portraits in existence of 
Gilbert Stuart, but they all pale in interest before the 
superb bust of him in the Redwood Library in Newport. 
This wonderful head was from a life mask made over Stuart’s 
face by the sculptor John Henri Isaac Browere. It was this 
art of taking casts from the human form that made Browere 
famous. 

John Browere was entered as a student at Columbia 
College, but did not remain to be graduated, owing doubt¬ 
less to his early marriage on April 30th, 1811, to Eliza 
Derrick of London, England. He turned his attention to 
art and became a pupil of Archibald Robertson, the minia¬ 
ture painter, who came to this country from Scotland in 1791 
with a commission from the Earl of Buchan to paint for his 
gallery at Aberdeen a portrait of Washington. Browere 
accepted the invitation of his brother who was captain of a 
vessel trading with Italy to improve himself with study 
abroad, and for nearly two years he traveled on foot through 
Italy, Greece, France and England. Returning to New 
York he began modeling, and produced an excellent bust of 

(249) 


GILBERT STUART 


Alexander Hamilton from Robertson’s miniature. Being of 
an inventive turn, he began experimenting to obtain casts 
from the living face in a manner and with a composition 
different from those commonly employed by sculptors. Call 
Browere’s work what one will—process, art, or mechanical 
—the result gives the most faithful portrait, down to the 
minutest detail, the very living features of the breathing 
man, a likeness of the greatest historical significance and 
importance. Stuart did not deny to Browere and his works 
the merit that was their due; he saw the great value of these 
life masks as historical records transmitting to posterity the 
living face. He gave practical encouragement to the maker 
of them by submitting to his process, and by giving a certifi¬ 
cate of approval, thus setting at rest the story of suffering 
and danger experienced by the venerable Jefferson, and by 
his example encouraged others to go and do likewise. The 
result was the superb bust in the Redwood Library. Upon 
the completion of the mask from which this bust was made 
Stuart gave to Browere the following emphatic certificate: 

“Boston, November 29th, 1825. 

“Mr. Browere, of the City of New York, has this day 
made a portrait bust of me from life, with which I am per¬ 
fectly satisfied and which I hope will remove any illiberal 
misrepresentations that may deprive the nation from posses¬ 
sing like records of more important men. 

“G. Stuart.” 

(250) 



GILBERT STUART 

browere, in redwood library 

NEWPORT. R. I. 


BY 








GILBERT STUART 


The “illiberal misrepresentations” referred to were of 
course the reported inconveniences that Jefferson had suf¬ 
fered; and praise such as this from Stuart was praise 
indeed. 

A few days afterwards the Boston Daily Advertiser 
announced: “The portrait bust of Gilbert Stuart, Esq., lately 
executed by Mr. Browere, will be exhibited by him at the 
Hubard Gallery this evening. This exhibition is made by 
him for the purpose of showing that he can present a perfect 
likeness, and he will prove at the same time, by the certifi¬ 
cate of Mr. Stuart, that the operation is without pain.” 

On May 20th, 1922, five busts were unveiled in the 
Hall of Fame at the New York University. Among the 
busts unveiled was a bust of Washington after Houdon, and 
a bust of Gilbert Stuart modeled by Mrs. Fraser. 

Miniatures 

Of miniatures we are lucky in having several; those 
painted by Miss Sarah Goodridge or Goodrich are now in 
the collections of the Boston Museum, Metropolitan Museum 
and in the possession of Mr. Samuel Honey of Newport, 
Rhode Island. 

Mason speaks of little being known of Miss Goodridge, 
and that her sister furnished the following sketch: 

“Miss Sarah Goodridge was born February 5th, 1788, 
at Templeton, Mass. Her parents, Ebenezer Goodridge 

and Beulah Childs his wife, were people of comfortable 

(251) 


GILBERT STUART 


means for those days who with industry and frugality, man¬ 
aged to bring up a family of eight children to maturity. 
Goodridofe was a mechanic and farmer. Sarah was the sixth 
child, and was educated with her brothers and sisters at the 
district school where she proved an apt scholar. She early 
showed a love for pictures and drawing, and as paper was 
scarce she used birch-bark and the white-washed walls of 
buildings. She could get regular instruction from no one 
and the only pictures she could find were the poorest wood- 
cuts. During her school days she received a few lessons 
from a friend of the family, and chance threw in her way a 
little book on painting and drawing, which also contained 
some instructions for painting on ivory. After finishing her 
school days Miss Goodridge taught a district school for two 
years and improved every opportunity that offered for get¬ 
ting information connected with the art she loved. At the 
age of twenty-four she went to reside in Boston with her 
sister and began her career as a painter, at first making like¬ 
nesses life-size in chalk, and afterwards in water color. 
Later on oil painting occupied her attention, but she soon 
gave it up for miniature painting. At that time there was no 
miniature painter of any note in Boston, but afterwards one 
came from Hartford with whom she became acquainted, and 
from whom she received useful lessons. Soon she excelled 
him in likenesses, and from that time forward her reputation 

as an artist in miniature painting was established. Two 

(252) 


GILBERT STUART 


miniatures a week were as much as she could do without 
great fatigue, but she was often forced to paint three in that 
time. 

“ Mr. Stuart was taken to Miss Goodridge’s painting- 
room and introduced to her by a mutual friend. He seemed 
pleased with her work, and gave her an invitation to his 
studio. She went frequently and carried, by his request, her 
unfinished pictures, in their various stages, for him to criti¬ 
cise. At such times he gave her many hints, for which she 
was very grateful, for it was the most useful instruction she 
had ever had. She was wanting in a knowledge of perspec¬ 
tive, and Stuart advised her to go to Mr. David L. Brown’s 
drawing school. Heads and heads only she loved to paint. 

“ Stuart had two faces; one full of fire and energy, seen 
in Miss Goodridge’s miniature of him, and the other dull and 
heavy looking, as he said, when he saw the miniature he had 
permitted a New York artist to paint — ‘like a fool.’ He 
was unwilling to be handed down to posterity thus repre¬ 
sented, and so he asked Miss Goodridge to paint him. 
When she had developed the head, she wished to do more to 
it, but Stuart would not allow her to lest she should injure 
the likeness. 

“As a miniature painter Miss Goodridge was without 
an equal in Boston for many years, and it was there she 
painted most of her portraits. She went to Washington 
twice, first in the winter of 1828-29 and again in 1841-42.” 

(253) 


GILBERT STUART 


Another miniature of Stuart was painted by Anson 
Dickerson who started life as a silversmith but later turned 
his attention to miniature painting. This miniature was 
owned by Dr. S. W. Francis who presented it to the New 
York Historical Society. 

Paintings 

There are a number of portraits of Gilbert Stuart 
painted by different artists, but they all pale before his own 
self-portraits. Of the portraits painted of him by the artists 
in this country, the one painted by John Neagle in his own 
studio is by far the most interesting. Another painted by 
Charles Willson and Rembrandt Peale is in the rooms of the 
New York Historical Society. 

The portrait of Gilbert Stuart painted by John Neagle 
is by all odds the best portrait that has come down to us of 
Stuart in his old age. (See illustration). The history of 
the painting of this portrait is best told by James Barton 
Longacre, the engraver, in his interesting diary. 

On July 12, 1825, John Neagle started on a pilgrimage 
to Boston with his friend James Barton Longacre, the Phila¬ 
delphia engraver, to visit the studio of Gilbert Stuart, the 
greatest of American portrait painters. From the interest¬ 
ing diary of the engraver we can trace their journey to Bos¬ 
ton which consumed a week as well as their reception by the 
veteran portrait painter. Under the date of July 20th the 
journal recites: 


( 254 ) 


GILBERT STUART 


“‘We took a carriage and called on 
Mr. Stuart, were very handsomely re¬ 
ceived by him. His age does not appear 
in the least to have impaired his faculties, 
so far as judgment and conversation are 
concerned. His powers are still displayed 
in his most recent pictures; they are full 
of likeness and animation.’ 

On this visit they also made the acquaintance of 
Washington Allston, who dined John Neagle many times at 
his home and went with him to Stuart’s studio to see the 
portrait Neagle painted of Gilbert Stuart. 

Neagle carried with him to Boston the portrait he had 
recently painted of Matthew Cary, the publisher of Philadel¬ 
phia, which he intended showing to Stuart as a sample of his 
work in portraiture. In Longacre’s diary he records under 
the date of July 22nd: 

“‘Neagle went to see Stuart, and 
showed his portrait of Mr. Cary, which he 
had nearly faltered in, in spite of all my 
exhortations and entreaties.’ 

Neagle need not have faltered in showing this fine por¬ 
trait to Stuart who received it with favorable criticism and 
much invaluable advice. It also shows the exalted position 
Stuart occupied when a painter of Neagle's ability felt such 

(255) 


GILBERT STUART 


apprehensions and misgivings in submitting his work for 
criticism. Of course, Neagle was greatly flattered as well he 
might be at Stuart’s sitting to him for his portrait. He 
writes “That he should have honored me, an humble artist 
and a stranger, by not only sitting for a portrait entire, but 
by sitting for the completion of a copy is singular. My por¬ 
trait is the last ever painted of this distinguished artist. I 
presented it to Stuart’s friend, Isaac P. Davis, Esq., and it is 
now, I think, the property of the Boston Athenaeum.”* 
“Neagle gave the following account of the sittings : 

“ ‘ Mr. Stuart had stepped out of the 
painting room (it was at his own house) 
and in the meantime as a preparation for 
his sitting I placed alongside of my unfin¬ 
ished portrait one painted by him of Mr. 

Quincy, the Mayor of Boston, with the 
view of aiding me somewhat in the color¬ 
ing. When he returned and was seated 
before me he pointed to the portrait of 
the Mayor and asked, ‘What is that?’ 

‘ One of your pictures.’ ‘ Oh, my boy, 
you should not do that! ’ said he. ‘ I beg 
your pardon, Mr. Stuart; I should have 

* Now hanging at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and the copy 
spoken of is the replica at the Pennsylvania Historical Society. 

(256) 


GILBERT STUART 


obtained your permission before I made 
use of it; but I have placed it so carefully 
that it cannot suffer the least injury.’ ‘It 
is not on that account,’ said he, ‘that I 
speak. I have every confidence in your 
care; but why do you place it there?’ 

‘That I might devote my mind to a high 
standard of art,’ I replied, ‘in order the 
more successfully to understand the natural 
model before me.’ ‘But,’ said he, ‘does 
my face look like Mr. Quincy’s?’ ‘No, 
sir, not at all in the expression, nor can I 
say that the coloring is even like; but 
there is a certain air of truth in the color¬ 
ing of your work, which gives me an in¬ 
sight into the complexion and effect of 
nature ; and I was in the hope of catching 
something from the work of the master 
without imitating it.” 

There can be no doubt that Neagle drank deep at the 
fountain of Stuart’s genius. The conversations carried on at 
these sittings were helpful and inspiring, and Neagle missed 
nothing that fell from Stuart’s lips. 

Neagle told John Sartain, the engraver, that while he 
was painting Stuart’s portrait the weather was very hot and 
drying, and his colors became ropy and unmanageable. 

(257) 


GILBERT STUART 


Stuart, as he posed, saw the trouble the artist was having 
with his paint and asked him if he did not know how to 
remedy it. Neagle acknowledged that he did not. ‘Well, 
hand me your palette and knife and I will show you.’ He 
then spat in the color and with rapid motion of the knife 
mixed it in thoroughly, treating each pigment in succession 
in the same way. Neagle said the effect was magical, the 
paint afterwards so readily obeyed every touch. That 
Stuart’s mind remained vigorous, an entry in Mr. Longacre’s 
diary shows very clearly: 

“‘July 23rd, Saturday. In the morn¬ 
ing I called on Mr. Stuart—much inter¬ 
ested in his conversation from eleven till 
nearly two o’clock; we were in his paint- 
in or room.’ ” 



(258) 


INDEX 


Adams, John, 55, 64, 150 
Alexander, Cosmo, 9-10 
Allibone, William, 161 
Allston, Washington, 7, 36, 5 2, 60, 77 
American Academy, 47 
American Philosophical Soc., 153-154 
Andrews, Jos., 109 
Anthony, Albro, 2 
Anthony, Elizabeth, 2 
Anthony, Joseph, 11, 16, 139 
Appleton, Wm. A., 186 
Avery, Samuel P., 43, 115, 197 

Baker, George F., 213 
Balch, Mrs. Thos., 159 
Bannister, Mr. and Mrs. John, 8 
Barre, Colonel Isaac, 27, 31 
Barrow, M. T., 84 
Barry, 96 

Beresford, Hon. John, 37 
Berkeley, Bishop, 7 
Betts, Mrs., 149 
Biddle (family), 200 
Bingham, William, 46, 89, 90, 93, 94, 
95, 96, 97, 116, 132, 133 
Bingham, Mrs., 46, 89, 90 
Bissit, Rev. George, 4-5 
Black, George N., 223 
Blackburn, Joseph, 7 
Blight, Mr., 171 
Blodget, Esq., 84 
Boston Athenaeum Society, 83, 101 
Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 101, 
107, 145, 152, 176 


Boydell, Alderman, 30-31 
Braun, John F., 127, 136 
Breed (family), 136 
Bretton, Lord Monk, 180 
Bringhurst, Sam’l, 99-100 
Brinton, Mrs. Ferree, 109, 214 
Brook, The, 163 
Brooks, Frederick, 239 
Browere, J. H. I., 249, 250, 251 
Brown, Rev. Marmaduke, 5 
Brownlow, William, 37 
Burr, Col., 84 
Burton-Cunyngham, 37 

Cadwalader, Lambert, 171 
Camperdown, Lord, 118 
Capitol (Washington, D. C.), 206-207 
Carmarron, Henry, Earl of, 30 
Carnill, W. W., 158 
Carroll, Danl., 166 
Casaubron, Esq., 84 
Catholic Club of New York, 137 
Caven, George, 37 
Chambers, Sir George, 10 
Channing, Wm., 115 
Chapman, John Jay, 232 
Charles I, 17 
Clark, Robt. S., 203 
Clark, Wm. A., 221 
Clarke, Thomas B., 83, 114, 169 
Coates, Charlotte (Mrs. Stuart), 32, 
92, 101 

Coates, Dr., 32 

Cochran, Alexander Smith, 88, 129 


(259) 


INDEX 


Coleman (family), 123 

Coles, Mrs. Elizabeth, 169 

Coles (family of Phila.), 174 

Copley, John Singleton, 31 

Constable, Wm., 134, 147 

Converse, John H., 236 

Cook, Henry N., 245 

Coolidge, T. Jefferson, 1 75 

Corcoran Art Gallery, 49, 167, 206, 232 

Craig, John, 84, 172 

Crammond, Mr., 84 

Crane, Zenas, 226 

Crawford (artist), 106 

Cremorne, Lord Viscount, 84 

Crosby, Mrs., 211 

Cruikshank, Dr. r 22, 32 

Custis, G. W. P., 46, 78, 91 

Cutts, Richard and Mrs., 48, 170 

Dahlgren, Mrs., 182 
Dammer, Mrs., 33 
Damrosch, Mrs. Walter, 233 
Dance, Geo., 33 
Dance, Nathaniel, 25, 33, 34 
Dandridge, Mr., 42 
Davis, I. P., 146 
Davison, Henry P., 178 
Delano, Mrs. Warren, 185 
Detroit Athletic Club, 150 
Dillard, Dr. H. K., Jr., 173 
Dorchester Heights (Washington), 
145-146 

Douglass, George, 168 
Dublin, Ireland, 35, 36, 37 
Dublin Royal Academy, 35 
Dunlap, William, vi, 26, 91, 105 
Durand, Asher B.,' 86 
D’Yrujo, Marchioness, 46 

■ 1 4 f . \ ' 

Earl, Ralph, 39 
Earley, John H., 196 


Earlom, Richard, 31 
Ehrich Gallery (New York), 135 . 178, 
210 

Elkins, George, 157 
Ellsworth, James W., 188 
Emery, Mrs. Thomas J., 161 
Etting (family), 181 
Everett, Edward, 108 
Ewing, John Hoye, 243 

Facius (engraver), 31 
Faneuil Hall, Boston, 106, 107, 108, 
145 

Fisher, Robt. J., 244 
Fisher (Phila.), 119 
Fitzgibbon, Lord, 37 
Fitzsimons, 84 
Foster, John, 37 
Frazer, Oliver, 147 
Fredericksburg, Va., 225 
Frick, Henry Clay, 118 
Frothingham, Dr., 31 
Fuseli, Henry, 33 

Gainsborough, Thomas, 21, 27, 30, 
3 C 64 

George III, 17 
Gibbs, Col. Geo., 115, 175 
Gilmor, Robert, 182 
Glasgow University, 10 
Goodridge, Sarah, 251, 252, 253 
Grant, Esq., 84 

Grant, William, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 
Grattan, Henry, 37 
Gray, Mrs. Horace, 191 
Greenleaf, 84 
Greenwood, John, 80 
Griswold, Rufus W., 45 

Halford, Sir Henry, 31 
Hall, John, 31 ■ 

(260) 


INDEX 


Hall, Miss Ann, 7 
Halpin (artist), 7 
Hamilton (family), 147 
Hamilton, Wm., 84, 153 
Hand, Genl. Edw., 129 
Hanson, Alexander Contee, 124 
Harkness, Edw. S., 121 
Harrison, Jos., 83, 86, 87, 114 
Hart, Charles Henry, 88, 89, 116, 127, 
128, 129 

Hartford, Conn., 142 

Haywood, Mrs. Sami., 51 

Heath, James, 31, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 

Heckscher, G. M., 212 

Henry, Chas. W., 184 

Herbert (author), 29, 75 

Hodges, C. H., 37 

Holloway, Thomas, 114 

Holmes, Mr., 84 

Houdon (sculptor), 78 

Howard (family), 124-126 

Hudson, Thomas, 34 

Humphrey, Ozias, 31 

Hunt (family, of Trenton), 164 

Hunter, Dr. William, 8 

Jacobs (family), 212 
Jameson, George, 9 
Jandennes, Don Jos. de, 84 
Jay, John and Mrs., 42, 44, 76, 84 
Jefferson, Thomas, 48 
Jennings, Walter, 109, 210 
Johnson, Dr. Sami., 34, 41 
Johnston, Eliz. B., 121, 148, 182, 190 
Johnstone (Irish), 30 

■ 

Kay, Nathaniel, 4 
Keating, Geo., 31 
Kemble, John, 30 
Kent, Duke of, 40 
Kentucky Hist. Soc., 146 


Kepple, Alderman, 92 
Keyser, Mr. H. Irvine, 89 
King, Ralph, 218 
King, Samuel, 7 
Kinsman (family), 196 
Kitchen, James, 116 
Knoedler & Co., 118, 121, 122, 123, 
149, 161, 162, 168, 188, 203 

Lafayette, 108 
Landis, C. I., 89, 117, 129 
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 46, 83, 84, 

9 L 93 , 94 , 95 , 96, 97 , 132, 133 
Latrobe (family), 153, 154, 202 
Lee, Genl. Henry, 84, 120 
Lee, Robert E., 127 
Lee, Wm. Ludwell, 84, 127 
Leinster, Duke of, 31, 36 
Lester, C. E., 86 
Levy Galleries, 168 
Lewis, John D., 98, 133 
Lewis, Mrs. Laurence, 46 
Lewis, Wm. D., 148, 189 
Lindsay, Robert M., 163 
Liston, Lady, 12 
Liston, Sir Robert, 12 
Lopez, family (Newport), 11 

Macbeth, Wm. (Inc. of N. Y.), 128 
Madison, James, 47 
Madison, Mrs., 46, 48 
Malbone, Edw. G., 7 
Manchester, Duke of, 31 
Maryland Historical Soc., 181 
Mason, Geo. C., vi, 115, 155 
Mason, Jonathan, 50, 160, 176 
Massachusetts Historical Soc., 194 
Maynard, Ross H., 205 
McAllister, John, 92 
McCall (family), 183 
McGurk, J. I., 212, 217 

(261) 


INDEX 


McKim, Isaac, 169 
McSparron, Dr., 3 
Mead, Esq., 84 
Meeker, Arthur, 116 
Mellon, Andrew W., 122 
Meredith, Esq., 84 
Metropolitan Museum, 166 
Mitchell (family), 237 
Moffatt, Dr. Thomas, 2 
Monroe, Peter J., 138 
Moore, Edw.. W., 231 
Morgan, J. P., 44 
Morris (family), 120 
Mount Vernon, Va., 222 
Mumford, Benj., 3 
Mumford, Hannah, 3 
Munn, Charles A., 88, 117 
Mustard, Mrs. W. P., 195 

Narragansett, R. I., 1, 3 
National Port. Gal. London, 143 
Neagle, John, 92-93, 2 54 , 255, 256 
Necklin, 84 

New York Chamber of Commerce, 

215 

New York Hist. Soc., 177 
New York Public Library, 137, 147 
Newport, R. I., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 139, 141 
Newton, Gilbert Stuart, 2 
Newton, Henry, 2, 40 
Noailles de, Louis, 92 
Northumberland, Duke of, 15, 27, 31 

Ogle, Gov. Benjamin, 49 
Otis, Mrs Harrison Gray, 81 

Parker, Gilbert, 128 

Parker (family), 193 

Parkman, Sami., 107, 145 

Payne, Miss. See Cutts 

Peale, Charles Willson, 39, 177, 254 


Peale, Rembrandt, 46, 81, 86, 114, 254 
Penna. Academy of Fine Arts, 51, 83, 
91, 132, 133, 208 

Penna. Historical Soc., 108, 155, 164 
Percy (see Northumberland) 

Perkins, Thos. H., 176 
Peter, Miss J., 217 
Philadelphia Club, 192 
Philadelphia Library Co., 157 
Pickman, Dudley, 229 
Pierrepont (family), 134 
Pinckney, Chas. C., 191 
Pollock, Messrs., 84 
Pratt, Herbert L., 124, 172 
Pratt, Mathew, 39 
Providence State House, 139 
Pruyn, J. V. L., 171 
Pulitzer, Joseph, 234 
Pybus, John, 31 

Quincy, Josiah, 69, 106, 123 

Raeburn, Sir Henry, 21, 64 
Rawle, Wm, 158 
Read, Col., 84 

Redwood Library, Newport, 8, 250 
Reilly, Anna R., 117 
Reuling, Dr. Geo., 127, 200, 231 
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 22, 23, 26, 31, 53 
Rhode Island School of Design, 160 
Rice, Wm. G., 170 
Rives (family), 125 
Robinson, Charles, 38 
Robinson, Mrs. C. L. F., 216 
Robinson, Walter, 38 
Rockefeller, John D., Jr., 162 
Rogers (family), 195 
Romley, George, 21, 64 
Rosebery, Lord, 98, 133 
Rosenthal, Albert, 158, 213, 219, 230 
Royal Academy, 22, 25, 26 


(262) 


INDEX 


Rutland, Duke of, 35 
Sargent, Ignatius, 146 
Sartain, John, 136 

Scott (Lancaster), Alexander, 84, 88, 
11 7 

Sharp, William, 31, 109 
Shattuck, Dr. Geo. C., 162 
Shee, Sir Martin, 21 
Shippen (family), 198, 204 
Shoemaker, S. M., 199 
Siddons, Mrs., 22 
Sinclair (family), 122 
Smibert, John, 7 
Smith, Esq., S. C., 84 
Smith, Dr. William, 85 
Somerville (family), 120 
Sparks, J., 100 
Speyer, James, 149 
Springate, Rev., 32 
Steigerwalt, Charles, 128 
Stevens, Dr., 84 
Story, W. W., 44 
Stoughton, John, 84 
Straight, Wm., 126 
Straus, Oscar S., 108, 179 
Stewart, A. T., 164 
Stuart, Miss Jane, vii, 22, 28, 32, 35, 
36, 67, 68, 77, 81, 103, 145, 150 
Sully, Thomas, 24, 27, 164 
Swan, J., 84 
Swift, Jos., 159, 192 

Tainter, F. S., 209 

Tayloe, Col. John & Mrs., 48, 49, 167 

Taylor, Bayard, 179 

Taylor, Mrs. H. Evan, 198 

Thornton, Dr., 46 

Trott, Benjamin, 38 

Trumbull, John, 24, 39 

jTucker, George, 125 

Tuckerman, Henry T., 41, no 


Tweed, Wm. M., 135 
Tyler, Mrs. Geo. F., 119 

University Club of N. Y., 164 

Valley Forge Historical Soc., 238 
Van Dyke, Dr. Henry, 200 
Vanderbyn, John, 82, 146 
Vaughan, J., 84 
Vaughan, Samuel, 83, 87, 114 
Vernon collection, 6 
Vincent, Lord St., 27, 31 
Virginia State Library, 235 

Wagstaff (family of New York), 165 
Wall, Wm. A., 141 
Wallack, James, 187 
Wain (family), 157 
Walters, H., 197 
Ward, William, 30 
Warner, Miss Anne, 185 
Warren, Edw. R., 146 
Washington, D. C., 47-48 
Washington, George, 1, 28, 38, 42, 43, 
77, 85, 103, 104 

Washington, Martha, 45, 46, 81, 99, 
101, 103, 104 

Waterhouse, Dr. Benj., n, 12, 18, 28 
Watson, J., 84 

West, Benj., 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 
24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34. 52, 62, 70, 
71, 84, 247, 248 
West, Rafe, 23 
West Point, N. Y., 185 
Wharton, Mr. (Phila.), 16 
Wharton, Kearny, 84 
White House, Washington, D. C., 146 
Wiggin, Albert H., 217 
Williams, Sami., 98, 133 
Willing Ann (see Mrs. Bingham) 
Willing, Thos. M., 163, 180 
Wilson, Richard, 25 

(263) 


INDEX 


Winstanley, 46, 87, 105, 107 Wright, W. D. C., 230 

Winthrop, Robt. C., 194 Wyman, Frank, 220 

Wister, Owen, 74, 75 

Wister, Wm. W., 100 Young, Howard, 189 

Wollett, William, 31 


(264) 


3^77-1 










Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 


PreservationTechnologies 


A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



























